Dr. Brown Answers Your Hebrew, Greek, and Bible Questions

The following is a prerecorded program. I'm not taking phone calls because I've got a whole bunch of questions that were submitted in advance on Twitter and on Facebook, raising all kinds of interesting questions about the biblical text, about the biblical languages, about specific verses. So, we're going to dive in together.

I think you're going to find this edifying, informative, and enjoyable, but no calls today. I'm going to start over on Twitter, and James asked this. Did Jesus go up to Jerusalem three times a year to observe the feast per Exodus 23?

If not, why not? Now, when I saw the question from James, I remember that we've interacted some off of Twitter, just in different email correspondences. James is a researcher and a scholar himself, so there's obviously more to the question in terms of why he's asking it. We only have Luke 2 that tells us specifically that Jesus as a boy was with his parents and part of a caravan of Jewish people coming into and out of Jerusalem for the Passover. We know in John 10, there's a reference to him being in the city for the Festival of Lights, which would be Hanukkah, which was not one of the biblical feasts. We know in John 7, he's in the city of Jerusalem in conjunction with Sukkot Tabernacles. But outside of those texts, and then Passover dialogue in Jerusalem, outside of those texts, it doesn't tell us, but I would absolutely assume that he did.

In other words, there is no biblical evidence that he did not, and clear biblical evidence that he did. And this would have been his persistent habit as a male Jew living in proximity to the land. If you were too far away and it was impossible to get there and back repeatedly and things like that, that could be a potential issue that would come up. But from Galilee to Jerusalem, it's readily doable, and other pilgrims are doing it. So you'd go there for Passover, then you'd go there for Shavuot, the Feast of Weeks, Pentecost.

So that's two trips in a pretty short period of time. And then you'd go there for Sukkot Tabernacles. So I would absolutely assume that that was the case. I'm just looking in the comments section.

Okay, there are no comments, just some likes to the question there. So, yeah, James, I would absolutely understand that he did. I would say the biblical evidence that we have puts him in Jerusalem for various key feasts and festivals and times, and most of them being in conjunction with the required feasts and festivals, and that we would expect that from him as a Torah-observant Jew, that he would be there. In John 7, when there's the threat to his life, he goes a little bit later than his brothers, but he goes. Okay, let's go over to John. Ron Cantor taught recently on the Passover from Scripture. He said that the term Passover in Exodus 12 isn't correct, but rather Pesach means to hover over the Hebrew homes and protect them. Is this correct?

It is an awesome reality either way. First, Ron is a dear friend of decades, and he was a student of mine on Long Island in the 80s. So I was 28. He was 18 when we first met.

We've been friends over the decades. He's married to an Israeli woman, raised his children in Israel, and is a dear believer on the front lines of important Messianic Jewish ministry in the land and around the world. Great speaker in church, his great heart for the lost, and of course, above all, a witness to his Jewish people.

And he's getting his master's degree now at the King's University, so he's doing serious study, academic study as well. I'd have to hear exactly what he said to interact with it exactly, but there is debate as to the meaning of the Hebrew word passach, the verb passach. And then in another form, piseach, which is a noun, is actually a word for someone that's lame. In 1 Kings 18, it's the word used when Elijah says, how long are you going to halt between two opinions or limp between two opinions? So hence this idea of walking in a hindered way, in a halting way. So that could say, rather than pass over you, hover over you. Or the traditional view would be it's the death angel that passes over and doesn't touch them.

So let's just say that I have to hear the exact nuance of what Ron said. There is debate as to the exact meaning of the Hebrew verb involved. Okay, Reggie, Romans 8, 29 and 30, For whom he foreknew, God foreknew, he also predestined, moreover whomever he predestined, he called those he called, he justified those he justified, he glorified. Reggie says, what is the original text of predestined here? So there is, the English translations are really fine here. In other words, predestination is something that is certainly taught in the Bible.

There's no question about that. The question is what exactly does it mean? What is the nature of it, right? So the Greek word, it's the normal word, just the short lexicon to decide beforehand, so pro ritso, is the Greek. It does mean predestined. The question is, what does that mean? Does it mean that God says, okay, choosing you and passing over you, choosing you, not you, so before the foundation of the world, he chose me, he chose you. He didn't choose others for whatever reasons in his inscrutable wisdom, but chose us for no good thing in us and predestined us to believe and have eternal life.

Is that what it means? That's what a Calvinist would understand. Or is it those he foreknew, meaning chose out in advance based on what? Well, based on what he knew about them, based on seeing in advance that we would receive his offer of grace. And he then works out all the circumstances in life to bring us to that point and then to follow in his steps. He then justifies us. He calls us and justifies us, glorifies us. And someone tried to read it differently, but it's speaking just about the calling of Israel there, or that all this is about service and not salvation. But understanding it in terms of salvation, even he glorified, that's not necessarily future glory, could be, but it could be glorified us by giving us the Spirit, saving us, making us children of God, giving us the Spirit. So, as a Calvinist, I pointed to these verses very strongly, late 70s, early 80s, as proof of Calvinism, but there really are legitimate other ways of reading it. So again, predestination is taught, but in what sense? In what sense? That's the biblical question.

And with it, there was a second question in the tweet. What is the best English Bible translation? Let's say the top three very accurate translations.

Okay. I've done a lot of shows on this, but since we're specifically focusing on biblical language and specific verses and things like that, if I had to choose just three for the broad, general reading audience, right, I would choose the ESV, the NIV, and the NET, right? Very, very close with that, the revised NASB. Those I would choose. If someone was really devoted to the King James tradition, then either the New King James or the MEV. And for those that would want a messianic slant, either the Tree of Light version or the complete Jewish Bible, right? But just for broad, by and large, mainstream English translations, those are the ones that I would go with, either ESV, NIV, or NET. The NET I would go with primarily because of the 60 plus thousand notes, translator notes and explanatory notes and things like that. The translation very often goes in slightly different directions. And sometimes follows what would be more a Jewish approach to an understanding, but highly valuable by top scholars. The NIV, of course, the best selling of the English translations, and it reads in the smoothest way, but sometimes it's not going to be as really painstakingly trying to use the same word in the same context more repeatedly, whereas the ESV is closer to the NASB in doing that. ISV is a very interesting read as well. It just has a few things that are maybe a bit more outside the box here and there.

In any case, those are the ones I would point to. Okay, Galant, the Feast of Purim takes its name from Haman's casting of lots. Why choose that name for the feast rather than something else?

Yeah, thanks for the question as well, Galant. The answer would be God turns everything upside down. What Haman meant for evil became God's means of deliverance.

What Haman meant for destruction became the path to his own destruction. So Jews commemorate that in a festive way. Purim, in that sense, is the most fun, festive occasion on an annual basis. I remember speaking at a Messianic congregation in Florida some years ago, and it was during Purim, and the leader of the congregation, the Messianic rabbi, was a silver-haired brother, a little bit taller than me, but on this particular day, he was dressed up as Abe Lincoln. So with the top hat on top, he's slender.

He looked like a Lincoln-esque figure with his beard and everything. But, yeah, it's a time where there's celebration because of this, and everything is turned upside down in that regard. So that's why. All right, well, since we just mentioned translations, William asks, what are your thoughts about the MEV translation of the Bible? I find it very enjoyable and accurate. So the MEV is the modern English version. It is a modern adaptation of the King James Bible. It's not a fresh new translation going straight from the Hebrew and the Greek into English, but rather looking at the Hebrew and Greek, but through the lens of the King James, and then updating and revising accordingly. So I was asked to look at it a few years ago because Charisma Media put it out, and for those that enjoy the King James tradition, either believe that the New Testament Greek manuscripts used by the King James are the better ones than used by, say, the NIV and the ESV, if that's your conviction and you like the style and flow of the King James, then, yeah, the MEV is very nice. It works well in that regard. And in many cases, I found it to be better than the New King James. Now, I didn't compare them meticulously, but that was just my feel in going through it.

So, yeah, great, good version to use in that respect. If some of you have given it more in-depth study and want to report things that you differ with on that, by all means, shoot them out to our ministry. Okay, we will be right back in this other break. Now move over to Facebook.

Grab some of the questions from Facebook that have been posted about the Bible, Bible languages, specific verses. Let's enjoy the Word. Let's study. Let's grow. Let's learn together. They're here on the line of fire.

If you're taking any calls, sit back and enjoy the broadcast. And remember, there's no need to ever miss a single article, a single video, a single broadcast on the line of fire. Stay connected with us on social media. If you're on Facebook, if you're on Twitter, if you're on Instagram, YouTube, so are we. So go to our website, AskDr.Brown.org. You'll see a list of the different icons. Connect with us there because we're posting literally day and night, my team, I am, so this way you'll know.

Things hit the press, new shows going out, boom, you will know. All right, let's go over to Facebook and start with questions there. Matthew, are there missing words in the story of Cain and Abel? I've heard that there are in around Genesis 4, but I don't have any sense of that when reading these passages.

Thank you, Dr. Brown. Sure. So the Masoretic text or the Masoretic textual tradition reads one way in Genesis 4, and the ancient versions add some words to that.

OK, so here's what you have. After God accepts Cain's sacrifice, excuse me, accepts Abel's sacrifice, but rejects Cain's. Cain's upset, and it says in verse 8, And then it says, so literally, And Cain said to his brother Abel, and when they were in the field Cain set upon his brother Abel and killed him. In other words, it seems like he said something to him, right? That he said something, but it dropped out. So the ancient versions, including the Targum, which is an ancient Jewish translation paraphrase of the Hebrew text, reads, Come, let us go into the field. So you can make a very good case that that's what was there originally. That Cain said to Abel, come on, let's go in the field.

And then while they're in the field, he kills him. Otherwise, the way the Hebrew reads it, and Cain said to Abel, but doesn't say what he said. So those would be the missing words, and most any modern translation will have that in the notes. So here, I just read that was New Jewish publication, society version, ancient versions, including the Targum read, Come, let us go out into the field. And here, let's just go to Genesis 4 in the NIV using my accordance software. And Cain spoke to his brother Abel. Then it says, that's what the Hebrew is, Samaritan, Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, and let us go out to the field. So all these ancient versions say there was actually more there originally.

But he says, let's go out to the field, and then he killed him there. All right, James, back to our Facebook questions. Is the one this Pentecostal doctrine on salvation a curse? I specifically mean the idea that one must be baptized in Jesus' name and evidence of salvation with speaking tongues. Since this deviates from the true gospel of salvation, is this not a curse? So based on Paul's words in Galatians 1, if anyone comes to you and preaches another gospel, it's not really a gospel, let that person be a curse. So if you are saying that everyone that has been born again and baptized, but not specifically in the name of Jesus, that all of them are hellbound, and that anyone who does not speak in tongues is hellbound, meaning none of them are saved, that is absolutely a false message, and it would fall under the curse in that respect, all right? Now, it doesn't mean that it's impossible for a oneness Pentecostal person to be saved based on ignorance. What I mean is this, that if they are worshipping Jesus as God and believe that he is eternal, and they believe that they're supposed to be baptized in his name, they believe he died for their sins, rose from the dead, and they also speak in tongues, and it's genuine, God's seen them where they are and met them, and filled them with the Spirit and speak in tongues, if they're not rejecting the Son, 1 John 2, whoever has the Son has the Father also.

But as always referenced, my colleague Dr. James White would say, if you hold too rigid an Orthodox theology about one that's Pentecostalism, then you don't really believe in the eternal nature of the Son, therefore you're denying the Son as well. As to how far God's mercy goes, that's up to him, but it is absolutely a deviant gospel. It is a deviant message to exclude everybody except this narrow group here. That's definitely a deviant message. Can God save people in the midst of it because it is preaching Jesus in that respect?

Perhaps. That's his business. We want to explicitly teach against the error. If the argument was just about baptism in Jesus' name and they said that's the way you should do it, but if you're baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we're not saying you're not saved, well that's a whole different issue. But if you're telling people you're not saved unless you're baptized by one of our bishops in Jesus' name, that's absolutely heretical. Elon, is there a reason David sinned with the senses the judgments were different on the two accounts? Okay, so, David sinned with the senses. Yeah, it was just a typo there, which happens to all of us. That the judgments were different on the two accounts.

So, let's just take a look there. So, the two accounts are 2 Samuel chapter 24 and 1 Chronicles chapter 21. So, 2 Samuel, 2 Samuel 24. David sins under divine judgment and then God tells him, okay, you've done wrong. He reproached himself.

He realizes it. David says to the Lord, I've sinned grievously and what I've done pleased the Lord, remitted the guilt of your servant, for I have acted foolishly. Then God, the seer, comes to him with a message. By the way, God in Hebrew, we say gad, right? But it's not God, G-O-D.

It's gad, which in Hebrew is God, G-A-D. Thus says the Lord, I hold these three things over you. Choose one of them and I'll bring it upon you. Shall the servant of your famine come upon you in the land? Or shall you be in flight from your adversaries for three months when they pursue you? Or shall there be three days of pestilence? So, seven-year famine and then three months of being pursued by enemies or three days of pestilence.

In 1 Chronicles 21, the same account, just a little bit different at the beginning, then the same account, the message is, I'll offer you these three things, a three-year famine or three months swept before the adversaries or three days of the sword of the Lord pestilence in the land. Why the difference? We don't know.

We don't know. It would appear that the 3-3-3 order in 1 Chronicles 21 is the more natural one, right? As opposed to seven years, three months, three days.

You have one of two choices. Either there was a scribal error because of which seven got introduced or there was a scribal error in 1 Chronicles, in which case things were normalized to be more logical 3-3-3. Now, if you look at the ancient versions, I'm going to go back to 2 Samuel 24. So, in my According to Software, I have the Hebrew text next to that Jewish Publication Society, so I have a Jewish translation, next to that the Aramaic Targum, next to that the Greek Septuagint, next to that the Peshitta, the Syriac. So, when I go there and I'm looking this up, what I want to see is do the versions read differently, okay?

Do the versions read differently? So, I go back to verse 13 and the Targum says seven years, all right? That's what the Targum says and the Greek says, hang on, let me make sure I just have this right. Yeah, the Greek says three and then the Syriac, okay, in any case, it seems that there's a textual discrepancy and then an error crept in.

That's why you check all the versions. When we speak of the Word of God being inerrant, what we mean is that in the original manuscripts there are no errors. Now, God may have inspired a writer to recount what someone said and the person's lying, we understand that, right? But if the Bible's saying it happened like this, like this, like this, and you have one of these discrepancies, so you search the ancient versions. How is it translated into Greek? How is it translated into Aramaic? How is it translated into Syriac? Or even how is it translated even later into Latin? Or are there manuscripts from the Dead Sea Scrolls that read differently here? Or do we have different variations of later Masoretic manuscripts?

So you go through all of that and then the vast majority of time you can say, oh, this was probably the original text here. And then last thing I want to do, I want to go over to a Christian translation. So we use the NIV here as we do this little exploratory research together and we go back to 2 Samuel 24 and we scroll down to where it says three years of famine, right? So in the NIV translates with three rather than seven. And the footnote is what we just discovered in our little pursuit together that the Septuagint also reads three. Now was the Septuagint normalizing the Hebrew 333? No, more likely there was a Hebrew text in front of the Septuagint that would reflect the original more accurately. By and large the Masoretic textual tradition is to be preferred, but here and there the Septuagint is translating from another text, a Hebrew text, and that is more accurate. So we don't have all the original manuscripts.

We don't have any of the original manuscripts. We have copies of copies and copies of copies of copies. But we have so much evidence and so many ancient versions that we can put them all together and like sift and wow.

You're done doing that. You come out with tremendous confidence in the veracity and the reliability of Scripture. It's really quite a journey. The more you dig, the more you study. It's like whoa, there's a lot of data. Now I know others did that and hurt their faith rather than help. I can only tell you my own process once I realized how much evidence had been preserved that it's like a feast. And you dig in and then when you have a discrepancy, it's really something very minor like this and it's easily resolved as well. Okay, we'll be right back with more of your questions and we'll be right back.

Hey, I'm here from whatever location. If you're watching on Facebook, just click share. It'll share it to your own page. If you like, after the show's over, you can remove it.

But this will help Facebook and YouTube share these more widely. And then just post a comment, hey, watching from wherever. And everyone listening. All right, everyone listening by radio, if you got your right hand free, just wave at me. All right, good to see all of you. I can feel the wave.

Yeah, I can feel it. And if you're listening by podcast, give me two thumbs up. All right, great to have you with us today. I'm not taking calls. I'm answering questions that were solicited early in the week on Facebook and on Twitter. I'm going to go back to Twitter. Excuse me, the Facebook.

Josh asked this. Are the missing verses in various Alexandrian manuscripts a sign that they're untrustworthy? No, you cannot make that generalization and say, OK, one set of manuscripts has verses one, two, three. And this other set of manuscripts only has verses one and two. It could be that verse three is a later edition. It could be that verse three is an edition by a later scribe who wanted to clarify something.

Or it could be that verse three dropped out in the transmission and we can see how. This is where you employ the science of textual criticism. It's not criticism meaning I'm going to criticize this.

No, no. It's criticism meaning I'm going to critically analyze. I'm going to look at the data in an academic way.

Here, so let's just give you an example, all right? Let's just say that you see written ten times Dr. Michael Brown, Dr. Michael Brown, Dr. Michael Brown, Dr. Michael Brown, then one time Dr. Michael L. Brown. And then you see in another text it just has Dr. Michael Brown and it doesn't have Dr. Michael L. Now, you have to explain why do you have that discrepancy, right?

It's very minor, but why do you have it? Was it that a scribe wanted to clarify, this is Dr. Michael L. Brown, but in that case why did he do it just once? Or could it be that just one time at a force of habit because he was used to seeing it, he accidentally wrote it, didn't even realize?

How would you tell? Well, let's look for all the manuscripts we can. And if you've got like 3,000 that don't have the Michael L and 50 that have it and you think, hmm, only two that have it?

Hmm. Let's also say that these lines about Dr. Michael Brown were quoted by other people from that time, right? Because it's scripture, right?

And so they're quoted over and over and over and over and over. And none of them have the L part. It's like, okay, it's obviously an addition.

You sort it out different ways. Or it was translated into 15 different languages and none of them had the L there. Okay, so somebody added it in at one point. So you don't know if something is being added in or something is being taken away unless it's clear it's essential for the meaning.

It's like, oh, missing that verse, it makes no sense in the next verse. But it could be an addition. It could be something removed. Generally speaking, a scribe would be more prone to add than to take away. In other words, they might think something is missing or they have to clarify rather than, whoa, this is sacred text. I don't take anything away from it. So often additions are more easily explained as written by scribes.

Now, one last point to make here. You also have things in the science of textual criticism where you say, okay, this is two words were joined together here or two words were separated here. Or a scribe was writing and he looked up for a second.

When he looked back down, he skipped a line accidentally, right? And you have names of these, hypography and ditography and homeoteluten and different names because it's a science, right? And I remember reading ancient texts in other languages like Ugaritic inscriptions from roughly the time of Moses. And I'm reading these and say, ah, here's a scribal error and here's how they copied this letter wrong and you can see how it happens.

So homeoteluten, that's the one where you accidentally look up. Have you ever been reading the Bible and the Lord said, and you get a text, you look away for a second and you look back and the Lord said, oh, wait, I just skipped four lines. But they started with the same words and the Lord said and they were on the same part of the page. Scribes would do that too.

So you study them all together and this is how you come to those conclusions. Freeman, the Greek word ekklesia is a known mistranslation into the English word church. Some say King James is to blame. Could you expand on this?

The King James committee is partly to blame. Yes, correct. So ekklesia would be better translated congregation or assembly than it would be translated church. And for example, if you're a German speaker, when you say kirche, you mean the physical building.

That's the church, the building. If you say gemeinde, that's the ekklesia, that's the community, that's the congregation, that's the assembly. Now in English or Spanish, ekklesia, you can be talking about the building or the people, which is misleading because the ekklesia, the real church is not a building, it's a people.

So how did Tyndale translate ekklesia? Well, that for him was congregation. So you had that tradition before William Tyndale predates the King James, but one of the rules for translators of the King James was to maintain the old ecclesiastical language, hence church, instead of say congregation or assembly. It would have been better to translate with congregation or assembly. And ekklesia often refers back to kahal in Hebrew, which was the assembly, the whole congregation of Israel coming together. So Jesus said, on this rock I'm going to build my congregation, I'm going to build my assembly. He died for a beautiful congregation, a beautiful assembly, without spot or wrinkle. But church has become so fixed in our language, meaning either the building or the people, that it jars people to translate it differently.

It really should have been translated differently. It's just got so fixed in language that it's used for the universal church, the whole body. Or you know, local churches, what church do you go to?

But it can be misleading. We have a beautiful church, meaning the building, even though all the people are backslidden. Or I go to church as opposed to I am, we are the church. We together are the church. It's a lot easier to go to a building than to be the church 24-7. All right, let's see here.

David. Are alleged mistranslations used as an excuse and lead to the state of today's church? What's generally used as an attack on the church is the idea that the Bible is unreliable, as we have in English, or the Bible is a translation of translations that can't be trusted, or that the translators themselves brought their biases in and therefore bashed other people with their translations.

Those are the objections that would commonly be raised. But in point of fact, a massive amount of scholarship, some of the best scholarship in the world, has gone into improving translations of the Bible over the generations. And really, the offense of the Bible is what it says. Not what it allegedly says, but what it really says.

That's the offense. And we must preach and teach clearly without excuse. It says what it says.

All right, Chandray. I recently read that many scholars believe that the story of the woman caught in adultery, John 753-811, is not the earliest of biblical manuscripts. This can be seen in the footnotes of many Bibles. Can you speak about why it is included in modern translations? Do you have any suggested resources on dealing with passages such as this one or the ending of Mark?

Thank you. So, yeah, it is widely known that in the earliest manuscripts of John that the account of the woman caught in adultery is not there. In that place. There are other manuscripts that have it elsewhere in John. There are manuscripts that have it in Luke. My understanding is that it is a true account that should be read as scripture with reverence and awe of Jesus as he acts there. But we don't know where it was originally found. That would be my best take on it.

As for the long rendezvous of Mark, that's somewhat of a separate issue. But since you asked about resources for that, I always love to recommend an old book. By old I mean I read it, I don't know, late teens, early twenties. By F.F.

Bruce, but it remains timeless. The New Testament documents, are they reliable? The New Testament documents, are they reliable?

It may have been updated by N.T. Reich. The New Testament documents, are they reliable? It's not so much focused on these issues, but the New Testament text, how we got it, how reliable it is, I think you find that very helpful.

The main books that have been written about these other passages of the long rendezvous of Mark, some of them are polemical or get into real detailed academic discussion that might be a bit more than you were asking for. Naomi, there are many baths in Israel for cleansing, a ritual need for Israelites. How did that practice of often cleansing become the one baptism, one faith, one baptism?

Thanks. Yeah, so there were purification rituals associated with the temple in Jerusalem, and then by Pharisaic extension associated with ritual purity for people in different parts of the ancient world. But if you go on a tour to Jerusalem, you'll surely be told, okay, here, where the temple used to stand, here are all these little baptismal pools, right, or baths as you referred to them.

So this would be a matter of, you know, you see the steps going down into the water and the steps coming out. So ritual purification was required for numerous rites in ancient Israel as the Torah legislates, and then Jewish law added to it. So it became a rite and a symbol having to do with repentance. It became a sign of cleansing and turning to the Lord. And therefore, John the Immerser, as he preached repentance to prepare the way for the coming of the Lord, called on people to be immersed in water in their repentance. And then, as this was a very natural response to faith, now the call to be baptized as a sign of repentance, this was now preached to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike, and thus became the entry point, became the once-for-all sign that I have now died to sin and live to do the will of God, and now a follower of Jesus, Yeshua.

Matthew, in your opinion, what is the best, most likely correct reading of Genesis 6, 1 through 4? Yeah, I believe it is speaking about fallen angels. If you just search my website, askdrbrown.org, A-S-K-D-R brown dot org, just search for Nephilim, N-E-P-H-I-L-I-M, Nephilim, and I'll explain it there. But my best understanding is that the sons of God were divine beings who fell and somehow had the power to take on human form to be able to procreate or take over human bodies and now become kind of a mixed race, and that this was one of the ugliest things that happened leading up to the flood and seemed to continue thereafter.

And then from what we can tell, the Israelites were successful in wiping out the descendants of these Nephilim called Anakim, these other giants and things like that. All right, we've got time for a few more questions. We'll address them on the other side of the break. Remember to sign up for my emails at askdrbrown.org. This way you'll never miss anything that comes out from us. A-S-K-D-R-Brown.

You'll be right back. .... This is how we rise up... It's the Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get on the Line of Fire by calling 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Hey, can I remind you to visit vitaminmission.com as I actually did last night looking for some health supplements from our friend, Dr. Mark Stengler. As listeners to the Line of Fire broadcast, Dr. Stengler has extended a special discount to you, a 10% discount. Then he in turn turns around and donates back to our ministry. So you get blessed with a discount. You get some terrific health supplements that really are great and made at the highest levels of production and care for your body. And then we get a donation made to us.

So vitaminmission.com. Spread it to everybody you know. The more, don't keep it secret.

Share it with everybody you know. All right, going back to Twitter for questions that were posted earlier in the week. Akos Mark asked this. Goel, that's Redeemer in Hebrew. Goel Ministries are manifested today in what ways?

In what ways are they forbidden? By Goel Ministries I mean freeing slaves, caring for widows and orphans, avenging murder. How those which were done today by the body of Christ better or different than in Jesus' day? We have not been given the responsibility to avenge murderers, meaning that if we understand there's bloodshed, we go and hunt the person down and kill them.

No, absolutely, certainly not. If we, like any other citizen, were aware of someone that was involved in murder, we would do our best to get it reported to the police so that person could be rightly prosecuted for their alleged crimes. But the Church is engaged in ministries of mercy day and night. Believers around the world work hard to care for the needy and the poor. And they work to redeem people who have been sold into sex trafficking, or have been enslaved in other ways. So whatever we can do, without going into another country to overthrow its government, whatever we can do to work against the evil, we do it. So what I mean is we don't foment a revolution to bring a government down because they're enslaving people.

But if we can help these slaves find true and lasting freedom, we certainly do it. The specific Goel practices under the law, such as if your brother is married and he dies without having children, that it's your obligation to marry the widow. No, that is something that does not apply today. It was specific for Israelite law.

Let's see. Cedric, does Jeremiah 10.23 teach Calvinism? If not, what is its interpretation? Jeremiah chapter 10 verse 23, Yaddati Adonai, kilo le-adam darko. So I know, O Lord, that literally translated, it is not for a man his way. So to choose or determine his way, you would supply that.

Lo li'ish holeich v'hachin et sa'ado. It's not for a man literally to go, to walk, and prepare his steps. So the new JPS, I know, O Lord, that man's road is not his. To choose that man as he walks cannot direct his own steps. A Calvinist could say, yeah, that's what I believe, that God predetermines our steps and that we don't make those choices. So a Calvinist could read that, and you could think that's what it means.

I would not read it like that for a couple of reasons. Even in the very verses here, Jeremiah's talking about asking God to chastise him, but not in wrath, and then to pour out wrath on the nations who, listen to this, who have not heeded you upon the clans that have not invoked your name, for they have devoured Jacob. In other words, they've done the opposite of what you want them to do. So if the verse is just saying that what human beings do is ultimately what God predestined them to do, it certainly can't be what it's saying, because the whole Bible from beginning to end is saying you're responsible, you're responsible, you're responsible is responsible. Just start reading in Proverbs 1, you make bad choices, you're going to pay.

You make bad choices, God's going to judge you, right? So obviously, obviously, it's not saying that whatever choices you make, you can't plan, et cetera. It's saying you can't just set your course. You don't know where you're going to end up. You don't know the things that are going to happen. One, there may be unexpected events of all kinds that change your plans. You don't have sovereign control over your life.

You don't have sovereign control over your next breath. And, in addition to that, God may direct, he may have a purpose and intercept you along the way. Not that he's going to run your whole life and govern every decision that you make, but rather, he intervenes when he wants to. So no, it certainly doesn't teach Calvinism. Otherwise, human responsibility would be undermined in that respect. And of course, my Calvinist friends would say, no, no, predestination and human responsibility work hand in hand. But my understanding would be, no, if God actually predestines Hitler to be Hitler, then Hitler could say, I'm only doing what you called me to do. Now, you say, well, Romans 9 deals with that very objection. Romans 9 says, who are you to talk back to God, right? That's what Romans 9 says, who are you to talk back to God?

It does not actually say that God predestined Hitler to be Hitler in that regard, without knowing who Hitler was. Anyway, that takes us a little further. Yeah, okay, James, if you're riding, don't drive off the road, man.

My friend James White, if he's on one of those endless bike rides, you could just mutter under your breath. That's fine. Okay, um, oh yeah, the next question from Cedric. Is God the author of evil?

If not, who is? So of course, God is not the author of evil. My friend Frank Turek would tell Calvinists that based on Calvinism, God is the author of evil, and Calvinists would have a response. The author of evil is the one who commits evil the first time. What I mean is that evil is actualized by a choice of a free being, like Satan before he was fallen, before he was the adversary, as a glorious angel, that God gave him a choice to obey or disobey.

When he disobeyed, evil was now actualized. The same with Adam and Eve. Ryan, does Olam really mean forever in Hebrew? Leviticus 16, 29-34, which concerns the young people for a service that provides atonement for the Israelites, provides three times that is an eternal Olam statute. Does eternal statute not conflict with the narrative that Jesus Christ's death atones?

Thanks. So Olam does not always mean eternal. When it speaks of God being lo olam va'ad olam, or me olam va'ad olam, from everlasting to everlasting, from eternity to eternity, surely it means eternal then.

But other times it means lasting, it means through the generations, it means as far as the eye could see. As long as the Sinai covenant was standing, that was an always statute. Once the Sinai covenant failed, because of the children of Israel failing, God instituted a new and better covenant.

So those things would point to the cross. Remember Yeshua says, He doesn't come to abolish but to fulfill, so he brings that to its full meaning. You'll find about 75% of the, quote, eternal commandments in the Torah.

So for all generations, forever and ever. You'll find about 75% of them can only be performed with a functioning temple and priesthood and Israel sovereign in the land. Otherwise they can't be, which means either God has not allowed the children of Israel to follow 75% of the forever commandments, or he provided a new and better way. And I get into that, oh, volume 3 and 4 of Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, my five-volume series.

Texts. There is a sin that leads to death, 1 John 5 16. I'm not saying that you should pray about that. What sin is that referring to?

I am not sure. The scholars I've consulted cannot say emphatically. We can do our best to understand based on other verses. Is it such a rejection of God's grace that there's going to be a death sentence on this person and there's no sense praying for them? They blaspheme the Spirit and there's no sense praying for them? Or is it something like partaking worthily of the Lord's table, which if there's no repentance, there's going to be death? And if you see that, you don't pray?

Don't know for sure. I know it's important, because the way the Bible describes it, but my propensity is going to be to always pray for people's repentance, always pray for God to bring them back and forgive them. If I know that they have absolutely, outrightly rejected God, could it be that God speaks to me, don't pray for them, leave them? It can happen, but I would rather have it reinforced by the Lord than just speculate, maybe I shouldn't pray for them, maybe it's a sin that leads to death. I lean towards mercy and praying, unless God clearly says that they've crossed the line, don't pray. It's like what happens with Jeremiah in Jeremiah 7 or 14, where God says, don't pray for Israel, don't pray for Judah.

They're going to go into exile. Don't even bother trying to stop it. Let's see, life is short. Why is the white horse conquering the world with a bow and a crown? Bow is associated as well with a falsehood, we have a toxic corona conquering the world and associate it with a falsehood.

No, no, no. The bow is just bow and arrow. Those are often used in the Bible in positive terms, so it's nothing to do with COVID. And COVID hardly conquered the world. And there are plagues far worse that have come and that I expect in the future will come, especially divine judgments at the end of the age, if I rightly understand scripture in that regard.

So, no, the bow is not a reference to a falsehood or to corona specifically, it's just a method of war, a method of conquering. Andrew, what are your thoughts as to why Daniel is partly Aramaic and partly Hebrew? Yes, so Daniel from chapter 1, verse 1 up to chapter 2, verse 3 is in Hebrew, then chapter 2, verse 4 through Daniel 7, 28 is in Aramaic, and then it goes back to Hebrew to the end of the 12th chapter. It's basically, this is the section now, 2, 4 through 7, 28, which is being spoken to the nations and about the nations. So as Daniel is giving the answer in Aramaic, it now turns to Aramaic text, and especially addressing the kingdoms of the world and the events of the nations, and then comes back to a more Israel-centric focus. It still addresses the nations, but it's more Israel-centric after that. Hey, with that friends, we're out of time, but remember, we've got thousands of videos, articles waiting for you for free at my website, including our store as well, where you can purchase other materials and whole courses. AskDrBrown.org, sign up, take advantage of it, and be enriched.