Dr. Brown Answers Your Best Bible Questions

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. Let's do it.

Phone lines are open. You've got questions. We've got answers. That's 866-34-TRUTH.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks, friends, for joining us on our broadcast today, 866-34-TRUTH. That is a number to call, 866-348-7884. Any question of any kind that you have that ties in in any way with subject matter that we talk about here on the line of fire, anything at all that we touch on with guests, anything I've written about, you want to ask me about, go for it.

Biblical, theological, spiritual, cultural, Israel-related. We'll take all your calls, 866-348-7884. Often when we start the broadcast, the phone lines are jammed even before we start. Our call screener gets in early. Today, we've got some open lines, so this is a great time to call early in the show. We'll get to as many of your calls as possible. Before I go to the phones, and I'm going to do it very shortly, tomorrow marks the 20th anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist attacks here in New York City.

If you are here in New York City, here in America, speak as a New Yorker, someone born in New York City, raised on Long Island. If you're listening or watching live, it is tomorrow. Otherwise, whenever you're taking this in, please hear these words. It is an especially painful anniversary, not just because it's 20 years, but because of the debacle in Afghanistan, because we went into Afghanistan to punish the Taliban for supporting and protecting Osama bin Laden. Yes, he's been taken out since, but with no help with the Taliban, obviously, and now they're back in power, and now they will inflict their tyrannical ways on the people of Afghanistan, and that's on us in terms of how we pulled out President Biden's disastrous decision and the American lives that have been lost since then, and apparently those still endangered within Afghanistan. It turns out that a few years ago, when I was on Jim Baker's TV show talking about one of my books that had come out, the gentleman driving me back to the airport had served in Afghanistan, and he was a gunner in these attack helicopters, and I said to him, you must have lost friends and colleagues over the years, and he said, with real seriousness, we're expendable assets. That's why we're there. We're fighting against the enemy, and if we die in the process, we die. I had him in mind when this happened in Afghanistan, and I wondered how he was feeling. It turns out, just this past week, I was there again this Thursday, so yesterday during a broadcast on my book, Has God Failed You?

for Jim Baker, and this same gentleman drove me back to the airport, and I was with another brother. We were talking a lot, but I asked him before we got in the vehicle how he felt, and he said, look, and I'm not quoting him directly, but he said, we were there to protect American lives ultimately, and the idea that we would pull out and guard American soldiers and protect American military casualties before we'd get all of our people out, anyone, he said, who would think in that way is not worthy of being in the military. He said, look, we're there to protect lives. If we die in the process, so be it. We don't want to. We'd rather not, but if we do, we do. The idea now that we'd be pulled out the military and leave Americans to fend for themselves was shocking to him and obviously painful, but here's what I want to communicate to you, and I wrote an article about it.

It's up at AskDrBrown.org, and it'll be up at other sites over the course of the day. What I want to communicate is this. Yes, it's tragic and painful to see the Taliban now back in power in Afghanistan after all these years, and with American weaponry at their hands as well, and the humiliation that America suffered worldwide and the pain that this means for people in Afghanistan and all of that, and the victory that this represents for Islamic terror. It's all terrible, tragic, but evil's always going to be here. Even if the Taliban were out, evil's going to be here. There's going to be another Islamic extremist group. There's going to be another religious extremist group. There's going to be a non-religious extremist group.

There's going to be some war, some conflict, be it a gang war in your city, be it a domestic conflict. Evil is present in this world and will be until Jesus returns. We will not eradicate the evil, but we can do good. As evil as this world is, it means there is a lot of opportunity for us to do good. We have the antidote for the poison. We have the cure for the sickness. We have what this world needs. So rather than being overcome and paralyzed by evil, let us be motivated to say, let us do the good that we can in the time that we have for the glory of God, for the glory of Jesus' name, and for the good of a hurting and dying world.

So let me share that with you before we go to the phones. May it minister grace and encouragement and hope to you. My wife Nancy lost her brother in the World Trade Center, 9-11 2001, and he of course left behind his wife and two children. You don't get over that. That is a lifelong scar, a lifelong wound. May God bring redemption and healing and hope to those who suffered terribly on that fateful day. All right, with that friends, we now go to the phones.

We're going to star it in Ada, Oklahoma with Chandler. Welcome, sir, to the line of fire. Hi, Dr. Brown. Can you hear me okay? Yes, I can. Awesome.

I'm a first-time caller. I love your show. Well, thank you. I listened to your video on KJV-only people, and I know that there is a lot of debate between the minority text and the majority text, and I actually am in a Bible study group where we're kind of talking about this. One of my friends had said that he always hears debate about this, but he never hears a good reason to trust the minority text.

So my question for you is kind of a two-part. Why should we trust the minority text if it's accused of being corrupted by people that had strange beliefs? And do you actually trust the minority text, or do you support it, or do you not support it?

And what are some resources that you get this information from? Sure. Right, so number one, my issue with KJV-only is not people that enjoy the KJV version or that believe the majority text, the Greek text, is superior to the minority. My issue is with the KJV-only mentality, that the KJV is somehow the uniquely inspired true English edition. It's a fine translation, but it's flawed in many ways.

It has many errors in it. If the KJV translators were alive today, they would not be using the KJV Bible. They'd be using an updated edition in the language of the people, which was the whole thing they were doing. So I militantly oppose the KJV-only beliefs, which are often fanatical and even irrational. That being said, if someone still prefers the KJV version for today, I'd have reasons not to. It's not a big issue to me.

If they prefer the majority text, that's not a big issue to me. But my answers to your questions, number one in terms of that part, the idea that the people that are behind or endorsing the minority text had these very strange beliefs, that is one of the myths that commonly circulates. That is one of the guilt by association type of things.

When you dig deeper, you find out that these are textual variants. When you dig deeper, you find out that a lot of this is just bogus. It does have the good effect, just like the media saying, you know, Trump is a white supremacist and anyone voting for him is a white supremacist. It stirs up a lot of emotion, but it's really not based on facts or history or accurate information.

And I'll give you some resources on that in a moment. The second thing is the vast majority of New Testament Greek scholars are believers. This is why they're so interested in the text.

And the vast majority don't come in with presuppositions about which is right or which is wrong. Textual criticism is a scientific endeavor. Textual criticism is not like why I like this or I don't like this.

It's a matter of scientific analysis. For example, the whole argument that, well, the majority text that has more references to the blood of Jesus and who would argue with that, and therefore it's the true text and the minority tries to remove the blood of Jesus. No, the better scientific argument is that scribes at certain places added it in because it was a familiar phrase or familiar concept. For example, if I had a manuscript and it mentioned you 10 times, Chandler from Ada, Oklahoma, Chandler from Ada, Oklahoma, and then one time it just said Chandler from Ada, a scribe might well think, oh, they left out Oklahoma that time, or just add it in unconsciously and not even realize it. In other words, scientifically, we see, and this is in manuscripts from around the world, ancient texts from all kinds of different languages and traditions, that scribes tend to add rather than take away. They tend to simplify rather than make more difficult. For example, there's a principle called Lectio Difficiliore, which is that the more difficult reading is to be preferred, that it's more likely that someone smooths something out or simplifies it rather than makes it more difficult when they're copying it. Or if a verse seems to say things a little differently than what you're expecting, a scribe might intentionally or unconsciously adjust it so it sounds more orthodox. So again, when scholars are looking at this, they're just looking at this scientifically and evaluating. So the third thing is that the so-called minority text is the more ancient.

It has the more ancient attestation. It has the earlier pedigree and seems to better explain how things got expanded in the so-called majority text. Now that being said, if for the rest of my life the Bible I had was, say, a New King James or an MEV or something like that based on the majority text, that'd be fine with me. In other words, I wouldn't struggle with that.

That would not be a major issue to me. However, I do believe that the minority text is the more accurate and that's why it's the basis of the vast majority of English translations that are used today. All right, so a couple of resources. If you look at the books by D.A. Carson and James White about the King James only controversy.

So D.A. Carson, one of the world's foremost New Testament scholars, and James White, leading theologian and apologist. If you look at their books that deal with the King James only controversy, they will also deal with some of the larger textual issues. Also, if you just search online for Daniel Wallace, one of the leading evangelical Greek manuscript authorities, you'll find information on his website, his blogs, I'm sure where he's addressed some of these things. It's nothing that we divide on, ultimately, because overall these texts are saying the same thing and overall the same truths are being reinforced for salvation and edification.

So don't divide over it and continue to study and dig. Hey, thank you for being a first-time caller. We'll be right back. Joining us on the line of fire 866-34-TRUTH is number to call.

Let's go to Justin in Providence, Rhode Island. Welcome to the line of fire. Hello, Dr. Brown. How are you? Can you hear me? I can hear you. Okay, good. I just want to say God bless you and God bless your ministry. The Lord has blessed me through your ministry, so thank you for that, brother.

Thank you. Now my question is with regards to the vaccine mandate. Now, I never anticipated it coming as close to me as it did, but I've basically been offered a motive, you know, either take the vaccine or, you know, lose your livelihood, and so my question is I've had my hesitances with this vaccine, you know, both medically and other ways, but what is your perspective, a biblical perspective, because, you know, on the one hand I have to consider my family and the fact that I am the breadwinner and the provider for my family. On the other hand, I have my conscience testifies that I don't want to take the vaccine for fear of, you know, you know, could be my health and other reasons, but I was just considering what you might think about that from a biblical perspective. Right, so obviously this question is coming up constantly since President Biden's announcement yesterday, and there's tremendous pushback against it. I plan to comment more on the mandate issue on Monday.

I want time to collect my thoughts. I want to read some legal opinions in terms of authority, et cetera, see how others are responding, so be sure to listen in to the Monday broadcast or listen to it after when you have the time to, and then, God willing, we also have a guest scheduled for next week, a strong Bible believer, PhD in chemistry, who is pro-vaccine. He's against the mandates, but he's pro-vaccine, and he's going to give his arguments next week as well, so that will be helpful to listen to.

I think that's going to be on Wednesday's show, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, either Wednesday or Tuesday. We'll confirm that for you, but the big issue obviously is the either or. That's the big issue, and if I were in your shoes and I was given that choice, what I would do is this. I would first do whatever medical research I could, and I'm sure you've been doing that. I would ask God for wisdom and talk with other friends as well, because someone said, look, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of people around the world have been vaccinated. If there was some real problem with it, it would be evident and we'd see it and so on, and then the counter-arguments against that, but if I was in your shoes, it would be a matter of, do I have faith that God will help me and provide for my family if I stay true to these convictions, or do I have faith that since people mean well and science is trying to work against a real pandemic that is deadly, that if there is anything wrong that I'm putting in my body, that God will protect me, that I can have peace about that. So I would ask the Lord in the midst of this for peace. So my choice would be, okay, Lord, if you don't want me to do this, then either give me clearer data or make me so uncomfortable on the inside that I know that I know, and my spouse confirms it with me, no, I'm not to do this, and we're going to trust God together, and he's gotten us through more difficult things in the past, and there are other jobs and other things he can provide, or, hey, hundreds of millions of others have been vaccinated, including plenty of our friends and colleagues. They're not dying.

They're fine. So if this is what it takes to keep my job, then I'm going to do this and honor the authority and trust God that if I'm putting anything dangerous in my body, I'm doing it to honor authority. He'll protect me. I'm not being presumptuous in it. And then I would go with that way of peace. Is it peace in the first case of that confidence that God will provide in a different way, or is it confidence that, okay, if I put this in my body, it's not going to kill me or have long-term effect. I'm going to trust God for that.

So, and then you have to make that decision, but that's how I would approach it. Is that helpful at all? Yes. Yes, that's actually exactly where I feel the Lord was bringing me to. If I go on one hand, I must have faith that if I get it, he'll protect me, but if I go on the other hand, I must have faith that he will provide as he will provide as he always has. So thank you, brother.

That's very helpful. Good, good. And ultimately, isn't that what everything comes down to, right? Father, I'm going to do your will as best as I understand it and trust you for the best results. For all of you in Justin's situation right now, may God give you wisdom. May God give you wisdom. And may God give each of us wisdom where we are.

In other words, in my situation, we do not have over 100 employees, nowhere near that. We don't have a situation where I'm being faced with a decision as the leader of a ministry and organization as to what I'm going to do in response to that government mandate. But I have a responsibility as a voice that people are looking to, again, not as a scientific voice about the vaccine. I am not that. I keep telling you, don't look to me for that because I am not that, but rather as a voice in terms of how we respond biblically to things like this. Hey Justin, thank you for the call. 866-34-TRUTH. Let's go to that alley in Dallas, Texas, where I just was the other day. Welcome to the line of fire. Hello, Dr. Bell. How are you today?

I'm doing well, thank you, sir. Yes, my question is from Luke 23-34, where Jesus says, Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing, and divided up his clothes by casting lots. This intercession of Jesus is the following, you know. Did it have any type of, you know, impact, eternal impact on the people, like, especially like soldiers who are, you know, crucifying Jesus, and if it did, you know, like, how is it applicable, you know, to modern-day, you know, like, enemies of, you know, Christ today?

Yes, yes. What a wonderful question, sir. We do not have definite attestation, for sure, about the people back then. Other than the New Testament, one of the soldiers cries out, surely this man must be the Son of God, at his death, right, when water and blood come out of his side. Something impacts him, and he realizes who he is. You know, you have stories like The Robe, you know, these movies and things, and some based on ancient traditions and accounts about what happened to different soldiers, but in the New Testament itself, we don't have that data, other than that one response.

But here's what we do know. We do know that when you get to Acts 7, and Stephen is being stoned to death, that as he's being stoned to death, he looks up to heaven, sees Jesus at the right hand of the Father, sees the glory of God, and then as he's dying, he says, Lord, don't lay this sin at their charge. He follows in the same in the same spirit. And who's the man egging them out? Who's the one keeping the clothes of those that are going crazy and throwing stones? It's Saul of Tarsus, who then launches a major persecution, right?

And he now himself becomes transformed. I have to believe that the believers did what Jesus taught, to bless those who curse and to pray for those who persecute. When Paul is writing about the way he lives as an apostle in 1 Corinthians 4, he says, when we're slandered, we reply kindly. And in 1 Peter 3, it's the same thing.

In 1 Peter 2 and 3, both follow the example of Jesus. Don't retaliate and don't attack. We're not talking about if we're in the midst of war, right?

We're going to bomb the Nazis to win world war and stop their reign of madness in Europe and the destruction. We're not talking about that. We're not talking about some guy breaks into your home and tries to attack you and rape your wife and kill your kids.

And we're not talking about if you got a baseball bat by the side of the bed, you hit him over the head and stop him. That's not the issue. We're talking about persecution for the faith, being attacked for the gospel, being hated because of our identification with Jesus. It is absolutely essential that we are not overcome with evil, Paul's words in Romans 12, but that we overcome evil with good. It is essential that we bless those who curse us. And for sure, for 2000 years, people have been converted by this. They've been transformed by this. This has been one of the key things that has opened the eyes of the persecutors and the haters that we're different, that we don't respond with anger and vitriol and garbage.

You attack me, I attack you back. Instead, we respond with grace and with forgiveness and with mercy and with compassion. So absolutely, it makes a difference. And it makes a difference in our hearts too, because now we have more of God's heart and we see the world through God's eyes.

Let me say this one other thing. It's why we have to really be careful about a partisan political spirit where we start acting as if, say, if we're conservatives, the Republicans, that's God's party, and the Democrats, that's Satan's party, and it's us versus them. And we get this political spirit of attacking and mocking as opposed to saying, hey, we differ with policies, but we're praying for these people.

These are people for whom Jesus died. That we should never, those of us who have platforms and all of us can potentially these days with social media, we should never sound the way the world sounds. When we're attacked, when we're maligned for our faith, for our values, we should respond with grace. We should respond with truth. We're not compromisers.

We're not wimps. In fact, it's a lot harder to respond with grace under pressure than just to lash out. It's a lot harder to lay your life down for the sake of others rather than preserve your life and take the lives of others.

That's the easy, worldly response. So God calls us to a higher ethic. And again, look at the end of 1 Peter 2. It says that when Jesus was reviled, he didn't revile back. And he set an example for us. And even if someone is not instantly changed, they will see the difference.

They will recognize it. And this is the kind of thing over time that God works into people's hearts like, why are you different? Why is it the more I attack you and mock you and make life difficult for you, the more you pray for me and show love to me?

Something different about you. Yes, it's Jesus. He changed us. So that example, Father, forgive them for they don't know what they do.

Paul says he was forgiven, 1 Timothy 1, because he acted ignorantly and in unbelief. Many people really don't fully understand what they're doing. We'll be right back. host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks, friends, for joining us on The Line of Fire. You've got questions. We've got answers. And with that, we are going straight to the phones, starting with Avery in Rancho Cucamonga, California. Welcome to The Line of Fire. Thank you.

How are you doing, Dr. Brown? It's an honor to be here with you. Well, thanks, man.

You know, we need to come up with a plan for our call screener when we get a name like your city name to have a way to abbreviate, because they'll often get flooded with calls on a Friday. It's like, oh, let me spell that out here. Anyway, yeah. Welcome to the broadcast. Thanks. Thank you.

Yes. So I was having a conversation with a Jew about the messianic prophecies about Jesus, and I brought up Micah 5-2. But what he said is that, you know, the Bethlehem Ephrathah mentioned here is like, it's a different Bethlehem, I guess, that Jesus was born in, and how the New Testament even gets it wrong, this Bethlehem. So I didn't... can you explain that or, you know, talk about that a little bit?

Yeah, that was just an ignorant answer. The better answer would be either to say, yes, we recognize it as a messianic prophecy, but that's because it goes back to David in Bethlehem, so that the Messiah will be a descendant of David. In other words, the Messiah doesn't have to be born in the physical city of Bethlehem, but rather that the Messiah goes back to David. And when it says from days of eternity, olam, that it actually just means ancient days, and it was going back centuries back to David, that would be a more normal rabbinic answer. I mean, you could try to make this Bethlehem is a different place argument, but it's really, it's not one that would normally be brought. So for example, if I look at a Jewish translation of the verse of Micah chapter 5 verse 2 here, let's just grab it.

Let me just get another version up here. So Micah chapter 5, and it'll be one verse different in Hebrew. It'll be verse 1, And you, O Bethlehem of Ephrat, so this is a Jewish translation, least among the clans of Judah, from you one shall come forth to rule Israel for me, one whose origin is from of old, from ancient times. So they're saying it's not from everlasting, as we would argue, it speaks of the Messiah's eternal origin, but rather he goes way back from ancient times, meaning way back to David and Bethlehem. That would be the normal Jewish response. The one that is a different Bethlehem is not the normal one that would be raised, because it was not a different Bethlehem.

Got you, okay. Yeah, so it kind of threw me off. So were there two different locations of Bethlehem there? No, because it kind of threw me off a little bit. Right, so if you were looking this question up, and this is a way I constantly refer people, all right, check out Netbible, netbible.org, netbible.org, and then you'll go to Matthew the first chapter, and let's just see here.

Okay, I'm just looking to see, in other words, if there's a controversy about something, they will normally raise it and discuss it. So if you don't see that there, two Bethlehems, all right, I would, or I would search, were there two different Bethlehems in the Bible? Right, and then let's, it comes up, of the two Bethlehems, this were one near Jerusalem, the other up north, the former receives the most fame, while the latter remains, is more anonymous. So in other words here, let's just go to Times of Israel article, was Jesus born in a different Bethlehem? In Antiquities Authority, archaeologists argue that Christian Savior hailed from Galilee, not Judea. So there is, really it's a very minority argument, you have to dig to find it, that there was a Bethlehem that was up north, that would be Galilee versus the Bethlehem in Judea, where the Messiah, where David came from, and where Jesus was born. So yes, you could argue that there was this other lesser Bethlehem that was not known, but that's not the one that Luke speaks of. It's very clear and explicit what's being spoken of, and the significance of it, and what Matthew records in Matthew 2, with the Magi coming and coming to Herod about this, and they've seen what's written, because everyone knows it's the city of David, that's the issue, and that's where Joseph goes, and that's where his genealogy points, etc. So it's just the New Testament, that's why I said it's really based on ignorance, you have to throw out the clear New Testament witness about where they were going and why they were going there to make it this other city. It's really an obscure, very weak argument. So you'll find some arguing for it, but it's an obscure argument that basically has to deny the testimony of the New Testament to come out with that. And the question is, why would the New Testament construct this whole thing? If you're going to construct it, if you're going to make it up, make it up correctly. I was just curious to see even how much is written on this or discussed, but it is a very much minority, obscure view, and that would be your response. So you're telling me not only did the New Testament writers make it up, but they made it up wrong.

They made it up wrong. Yep. All right, hey, keep reaching out, man. God bless you. Yeah, yeah, thank you. Thank you for your answer. I appreciate you, God.

You're very welcome. 866-34-TRUTH, number to call. We've got a couple lines open, which doesn't often happen on a Friday, so a great time to call in.

We go to our buddy, Eddie, in Madison, Connecticut. Welcome to the line of fire. Yes, Doc. Great to talk to you today. How are you doing?

Doing great, man. I caused a little trouble, Doc, in the Bible study this week with the topic being abortion, what went on in the country and everything. And I said, I admit I said a crazy statement, but when I was done talking, everyone said, you know, it's not what you said.

It made sense. And here's what I said, Doc. I said, I, they said about, I don't know what the exact number is, but let's say it's two million babies a year who are aborted.

That's probably low, I don't even know. But I said, if two million babies were aborted every year, according to what Jesus said, he said, broad is the way to destruction, and many are going to go that way. He said, narrow is the path to eternal life. So I said, if those babies were born, I don't know how many, seventy percent of them might have not made it. So I said, but those two million today are a hundred percent in heaven. So the lady said, what are you, some kind of a nut?

I said, no, I understand, it's crazy what I'm saying. I said, but think about it, those two million babies that were aborted, every one of them is in the presence of God. If they were born and they had to live this life according to Christ, broad is the way to destruction.

I don't know how many would have made it. Right, so could you, the same would hold true for like a one-month-old baby that was killed, right? Yes. Okay, so why not kill all the babies then and assure that they go to heaven?

No, I know. Right, in other words, it's a meaningless point. That's the point. It utterly, ultimately has no meaning. Otherwise we should thank Adolf Hitler for all the Jewish babies and children that he killed. It's ultimately something that has no meaning.

Right, so others... I ended this thought, Doc, I said, if I knew, like, if I was one of the babies that was aborted, now I'm in eternity with God. But the other way, if I was born here, that was the point. And then some of the people saying, you're right, maybe you would have missed Christ and now you're eternally in hell. They said, I wish I was aborted, you know, it's a crazy eternity to a nut house.

Right, right. And you're right, Doc, it's definitely a big thing. Right, so those that were watching noticed that when you said, raised abortion and caused some trouble in the Bible study, I smiled. Not because of the subject of abortion, but because your call is always based on the latest controversy you caused in a Bible study.

So there's two sides to this. One, the Bible is very clear about killing babies, killing children and killing the innocent, murdering them. It's a monstrous evil in God's sight because of which God can judge whole nations. So millions, hundreds of millions of people can ultimately suffer, not just the babies, but the nation as a whole can come under divine judgment because of this monstrous, horrific sin.

That's the first thing. The second thing is God is an incredible redeemer. And what people mean for evil, one of the worst things a human being can do is destroy the life of an innocent child, including a child in the womb.

That God is an incredible redeemer and will take those children safely into his presence forever. But that being said, again, you understand the argument itself is meaningless in terms of what's right or what's wrong. The argument itself has no bearing whatsoever. Otherwise, let's just end the human race right here and not bring anyone else into the world because most will end up not following Jesus. So obviously we make no decisions based on that, or that would be the end of the human race right here and now. Not another child would ever be born. So the good thing is in the midst of the evil, God's a redeemer. The bad thing is it's evil nonetheless, and it brings all kinds of other problems, issues, and judgments with it.

Let me just say this. To those of you who've had abortions and you're just stung by my words, if you don't know Jesus, you need to come to him for forgiveness of your sins, including the sin of abortion. If you were the man that was complicit in this or the abortion doctor or worker, you need to come to him confessing your sins, including the sin of abortion, and ask him for mercy and forgiveness. Jesus died for that sin too, and you can be forgiven and redeemed, and he can give you hope. If you are a believer but you're stung again, take hold of that grace.

When Jesus died on the cross, he knew that sin, and he paid for it, and let him use you in a redemptive way. 866-34-TRUTH. Let's go to Jamal in Baltimore. Welcome to the line of fire. Hey, Dr. Brown. Nice to be on the show. Hey, good to talk to you.

Thanks, a little nervous. But I had a burning question. So I've been studying the Bible recently, and I'm just looking up resources and stuff online. I've learned that the Bible, at one point it had more books in it, and some council of people removed certain books at some point, and there's some other... yeah, there's a whole bunch of stuff on that.

So I've got two questions. One, if that's true, on what authority were those books removed? And two, is there any merit to reading those books that have been removed, like, now?

Is there any...? Yeah, so to answer a great question, Jamal, number one, no. It's false. No books were removed. And number two, it's false that some council just made a decision on which books to remove. Rather, from early on, certain groups were books were universally accepted as God's Word, and there was dispute from early on about the other books, whether they should be included or not. And ultimately, some groups chose to include them, some groups chose not to include them. But there was never a universal agreement, this is part of the Bible, and then some group says, okay, we're going to remove them. As to your second question about reading the books that are disputed, I'll answer that on the other side of the break. So stay right there.

Thanks, friends, for joining us on the Line of Fire. So Jamal, a few weeks back, maybe a couple months now, I had a guest on, Steve Christie, who wrote a helpful little book, Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller. You can get it online, Amazon, other places, Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller, A Defense of the Protestant Old Testament Canon. So you'll find that helpful, but in short, the Catholic Bible will have books that are called the Apocrypha in them. It's fine to read them, it gives you insights into some of what happened between the Old and the New Testament, there's some edifying wisdom in there, and there's some things that we wouldn't fully agree with doctrinally, but it's not on the level of the inspiration of Scripture.

So it's good reading, it's informative, I would put it between a good book and the Bible. In other words, something that was, these books were highly regarded in the ancient world, but not on the level of Scripture. There are other books that are called pseudepigrapha, it's a big word, it just means writings that are falsely ascribed, like the book of Enoch, ascribed as if Enoch wrote all of it, which he didn't, etc. So those are interesting to read in the secondary, like wow, that's fascinating stuff, but again, you don't want to confuse it with Scripture. So nobody took books out that everyone accepted as Scripture, rather the books like the Apocryphal books were debated for centuries about whether it's part of the Bible or not. None of them are quoted as Scripture in the New Testament, and therefore, for that and other reasons, we don't accept them as Scripture today. And that little book by Steve Christie, Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller, you'll find helpful. Hey, feel free to call in again, Jamal, but be at peace.

The 66 books of the Bible that we understand as Scripture have been considered to be Scripture virtually without much dispute about almost all of them once these things were widely accepted in the body. Hey, thank you again for the call. Let's go to Wanda in Providence, Rhode Island. Welcome to the Line of Fire. Hello, Dr. Brown, how are you?

Doing well, thank you. So I guess today what I wanted to bring up is that I was raised in an apostolic household, you know, Christian household, and all my life I've been taught that it's abomination and sinful for a woman to wear pants based on Deuteronomy 22. However, as I've grown into an adult and studied the Scriptures more in depth, I realized that Scripture does not specifically say that it's a sin to wear pants. You know, in fact, it does say that a woman should dress modestly and with decency, but not specifically not to wear pants. So my question to you is, is it sinful for a woman to wear pants? No, unless for that woman before God it's sin. In other words, unless in her own heart she's convinced it's sin, no, in itself certainly not.

So what do we do with Deuteronomy 22? Well, that law was given because of gender distinctions. The law that may have, it may have tied in with other cultural issues as well, but the issue is gender distinction. So for a man to dress as a woman or a woman to dress as a man, those things were sinful in God's sight, and obviously anything that breaks down the distinction between male-female blurs it, confuses that, is it attacked on the image of God in humans as he made us male and female? That being said, there is nothing inherently male or female about pants. There's a colleague that I preached for in Louisiana decades ago, highly respected man of God there, but when he first went to India to preach, he was pretty new in the ministry, and he got to a village to preach, and in this village the women wore like these pantsuits and the men wore like these gowns, and he got up and railed on them.

The whole village, it's an abomination what you do, what he didn't realize was that in their eyes he was wearing women's clothes because he was wearing pants. So there may have been a time in culture, you know, in our American culture, that for a woman to wear pants sent a certain message, but it's ubiquitous now. And certainly a woman can wear slacks that are far more modest than a woman in a miniskirt, you know?

Agreed. Right, so the key thing is always modesty. You know, we don't ever want to dress in a way as to draw sexual attention to ourselves, you know, for those outside of marriage, what a husband and wife do is their business, but you don't want to wear things publicly to draw sexual attention to yourself, and that can be with pants or that can be with a dress, etc. Modesty, honoring the Lord in that respect is important, but no, there's nothing inherently male about pants or inherently female about a dress, even though we're used to it in our culture. Now, that being said, for a man to wear a dress, that is making a distinct statement. There is something in our culture to this day that when a man puts on a dress, he is dressing as a woman. And therefore, I would say absolutely for a man to wear a dress is sinful because in our culture it absolutely has that message. Now, if there's somebody from Saudi Arabia over in America and he's wearing one of those long flowing gowns, right, that's a different thing.

That sends a totally different message and that is not dressing as a female. So your study of Scripture is correct in terms of the conclusions you came to. Perfect. Thank you.

You are very welcome. 866-34-TRUTH. Let us go to Jose in Ventura, California. Welcome to the line of fire.

Hello, Michael Brown. God bless you. God bless you. Thank you.

Yeah, my question is regarding the Trinity. Yes, sir. But before I get to my question, I just want to, just so maybe I can understand you better, a while back there was a show called the John Ankerberg Show. I don't know if you remember that. Yeah. Yeah. And Walter Martin was debating the UPCI, I think, or UPC, something like that.

Yeah, United Pentecostal Church won this. Yes, sir. Okay. Yeah. And my question is regarding where do we draw the line when we could call someone a brother, but why do I ask that?

It's because I know that between you, you consider yourself a brother with James White, right? Yes. And one as a charismatic and one as a reformed person, there's a lot of differences, a lot of differences regarding God and predestination and all that stuff where some people wouldn't even consider a charismatic person a brother because of the differences and the origins of how everything came to be. Or conversely, others would not consider a Calvinist a believer. Yeah, exactly.

Yeah. And so my question is, is that if we could call... I lean more into the reformed view of things, but I have charismatic friends as well. But my question is, is that if, for example, you as a person that people look up to you and see you and all people would follow you and even follow your own beliefs, where do you think, since you call James White a brother and he's reformed and you're more leaning into the charismatic side and you guys are brothers in Christ, where do we draw the line with the oneness Pentecostal Christians that they have a heart for God, they have a heart for Jesus, but yet they believe what they believe? Yeah, let me just jump in only because I'm running out of time and I want to answer you.

Okay, okay. First thing is, a lot comes down to the person of Jesus. And James White and I believe exactly the same in terms of him being the eternal son, in terms of God incarnate, in terms of his blood alone saving, in terms of everyone who puts their trust in his work on the cross, his death and resurrection, being eternally saved.

So those are fundamentals of fundamentals. A oneness person ultimately has a different view of Jesus. Yes, they affirm his deity. And you could argue from 1 John 2 that whoever has the son has the father also.

This is a discussion James White and I have had. So I have met oneness Pentecostals and according to everything I can see, they are believers and they recognize others outside of their group as believers. But James would argue it is because of ignorance of the full teaching that ultimately they don't believe rightly about the son. And that would be where it breaks down, that they do not truly believe in the eternal nature of the son.

And that's where it becomes problematic. I would also say that many oneness Pentecostals are cult-like in other doctrines they have. That they would say if you are not baptized by one of their bishops in the name of Jesus, using that exact formula, in the name of Jesus, that you are not saved. That if you do not speak in tongues, and I am a tongue speaker, if you do not speak in tongues you are not saved because you don't have the spirit. And if you do not believe what they believe about the nature of God you are not saved.

So the most strict among them rule out everybody else. So I have worked with oneness people, I don't mean closely, but over the years, you know, preach for someone only to find out afterwards they had oneness beliefs or interact with them on other things only to find that out. James White's argument would be they may be believers but that's based on ignorance of what they truly believe. If they fully understood what they believed they could not be believers. In other words it is heretical in that regard. I absolutely affirm at them there is one thing there is one God and one God only, but do feel that their beliefs go in a dangerous and heretical direction. So to the extent they can affirm a right doctrine about the Son, I welcome them as brothers and sisters, to the extent they are wrong on that then they're going to be wrong on other essentials. Where that line is drawn though I'll let God be that judge specifically as to each one of them or any of them saved and who is lost. But we must hold to essential truths about the Son. We can't divide over that. Hey friends be blessed 15 minutes from now we're going to resume on YouTube with our weekly YouTube chat. Join me right back here. another program powered by the Truth Network