A Special ‘Best Of' Broadcast

You are listening to a previously recorded broadcast.

Well, it was right at Christmas time. Newsweek came out with a major cover story on the Bible saying it is so misrepresented, it is a sin, generated a firestorm of criticism. Newsweek allowed me to write a major rebuttal. And now we have with us on the line of fire the journalist who wrote that very article. It's time for the line of fire with your host, activist, author, international speaker, and theologian, Dr.

Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Michael Brown is the director of the Coalition of Conscience and president of Fire School of Ministry. Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34TRUTH. That's 866-34TRUTH. Here again is Dr.

Michael Brown. We are going to have a terrific and important broadcast today on the line of fire, 866-34TRUT, 866-348-7884. Many of you read the Newsweek cover story that came out two days before Christmas, The Bible, So Misrepresented It's a Sin by veteran journalist Kurt Eichenwald. I responded immediately. I took it as a hit piece against the Bible, immediately wrote about it.

Newsweek bashes the Bible. There was an outpouring of criticism. Evangelical scholars, evangelical leaders writing against it. I began to interact with Newsweek and said, Would you be willing to post a response or a rebuttal? They said, We'd be delighted to.

We wanted to stir dialogue. And then I interacted personally with Kurt, with the journalist who wrote the article. We've had two extensive conversations. We're going to have an honest conversation on the air today. And we'll find out who Kurt Eichenwald really is, why he wrote what he wrote, where we have differences, where we have agreement, and how reliable is the Bible after all.

But before I bring Mr. Eichenwald onto the broadcast with us, I want you to hear just kind of the man on the street. or the educated reader, their responses to the Newsweek article. I want to find out if Kurt's surprised by these responses. These were some responses on Twitter.

It was the most biased piece of biblical criticism I've ever read. Another one, there are many excellent responses to Newsweek's hit piece on Christianity. Michael Brown's maybe the best so far. Semitic language expert Dr. Michael Brown exposes the ignorance of Kurt Eichenwald who wrote the Newsweek hit piece.

Telling that Newsweek stands by an article so erroneous it's nearly bad satire. They clearly value opinion over fact. Dr. Michael Brown gave a great response to that misleading Newsweek article by Kurt Eichenwald. Dr.

Brown's response to the Newsweek rant.

So they call it a rant. Here's another one. They called it an anti-bigoted Christian screed. Another one calls it a screed. Another calls it a misleading cover story.

I stepped up with a scholarly response to Newsweek's feeble attempt to discredit the Bible.

Some said it seems like Newsweek publishing my article was damage control. Todd Starnes, Fox News journalist, said it was a failed, he thought it was a failed attempt at satire before realizing it was a serious piece. Professor Michael Kruger, expert in early Christianity, said this. The article goes so far beyond the standard polemics, is so egregiously mistaken about the Bible in so many places that the magazine should seriously consider a public apology to Christians everywhere. It accused Michael Krueger's article, accused Kurt Eichenwald of having a jaw-dropping ignorance of the facts about the Bible.

And Professor Daniel Wallace, recognized as one of the world's leading authorities on New Testament Greek manuscripts, criticized Kurt Eichenwald for his quote: numerous factual errors and misleading statements, his lack of concern for any semblance of objectivity, his apparent disdain for and lack of interaction with genuine evangelical scholarship, and his uber confidence about more than a few suspect viewpoints. Dr. James White, in his dividing line radio broadcast, went after the article with very sharp criticism. Did the article deserve all this criticism? Is Newsweek surprised by the criticism that has come their way?

And is Kurt Eichenwall anti-Bible? Anti-god? Anti-Christian. You are about to find out when we meet Kurt Eichenwald, speak with him face-to-face, so to say, right here on the line of fire. If you have a specific question about his article or about my response and you'd like to call in 866-342.

A little later in the broadcast, we will be taking some calls. Thanks for You are listening to a previously recorded broadcast. Fire we bleed. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown.

Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks so much for joining me today on The Line of Fire. If you miss any of the broadcasts, go to ask Dr.

Brown, A-Sk-D-R-Brown.org later today and just click on latest broadcast. You'll be able to listen to two full hours of interaction with Kurt Eichenwald. He is a senior journalist with Newsweek. He's written before for Vanity Fair and other publications. And he is the author most recently in terms of a major article, major research article that's drawn a lot of criticism and controversy.

As we said, The Bible So Misrepresented It's a Sin, which came out as the Newsweek cover story right around Christmastime. Kurt, without further ado, welcome to the line of fire. No, thanks, Michael. Michael. Great to have you on the air.

Kurt, were you surprised by the level of vitriol that came your way after writing the article, by the ferocity of the response? Did that surprise you? No, actually, it was very. I was sort of giving people warnings that this story was coming because every now and then I would tweet. Yeah.

Uh I'm about to publish. Uh My most controversial article ever. And I've had a lot of controversial articles, so I was, I was. fully aware of what the reaction was going to be. All right.

Well, wha why did you write the article? What what motivated you? Is it a anti-God, anti-Bible, anti-Jesus stance? What motivated you to write? Not I mean, not at all.

And one of the things I find sort of interesting is that people And I've noticed this over the years, is that people will take someone quoting the Bible and say, well, that's anti-Bible. This is something that has been Brewing in me literally for thirty years. I mean, my kids. When people have asked my kids, why'd your dad write that? It's like, oh, he's been planning this forever.

Um and what what What? People do not seem to understand. is that um I'm writing about a particular Type. Uh Chris, yeah. I'm writing about people Cool.

Um proclaim that they have read all the Bible, that they live by every word of the Bible. who then turn around and uh start condemning other people. Cool. Um I I I portray them in the first couple of paragraphs pretty clearly. You know, I would call them angry.

Um and they're They are a group of people who I Think um Unfortunately, Right. The wide public perception. Uh the evangelical movement, I think they Actually, betray that movement. And I think that their their argument. R Simply Wrong.

Yeah. And so, you know, to for someone to say that a criticism Uh a group of people. the people who politicize Christianity, and that is who I'm writing about. Is a criticism of God or a criticism of the Bible or a criticism of Christianity. R to be.

in my view, sort of reflecting the very problem. Because they're they are saying Eventually You know, I am the Bible. My beliefs are the Bible. What I think. is Christianity.

And therefore to point out my shortcomings. is to attack Christianity. that's simply untrue. All right, so let's let's unpack this and and I want I want to do my best. to help my listeners.

and the readers of your article understand who you are. and why you wrote it as as we fleshed out in our lengthy phone conversations as i got to know yeah uh a lot a lot about you and your background i it started i was uh i was in the car driving uh we were talking then i ended up doing a grocery stop picking things up as as i listened to some of your story then walked in the house and my wife began to talk to me and i pointed in the midst of a conversation it went on for a while especially that that first one but i i i want in short for our listeners to know who you are and and why you wrote what you wrote and then then we'll unpack differences that we do have and and very specific questions we'll ask and we're free to agree we're free to disagree that's not going to change anything in terms of our interaction but do you understand that There was a perception of painting with a certain broad brush. When you say, for example, they are God's frauds, cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which Bible verses they heed with less care than they exercise in selecting side orders for lunch. They are joined by religious rationalizers, fundamentalists who, unable to find scripture supporting their biases and beliefs, twist phrases and modify translations to prove they're honoring the Bible's words. And then the only individuals you mention by name, and obviously you're only going to pick on prominent people and mention by name, or well-known evangelical politicians, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindahl, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin.

And I understand that the political part's going to be divisive and any political personality is somewhat divisive. But a lot of people reading it said, wait, are you talking about me? Are you talking about me? I mean, I want to see the Ten Commandments. I think the Ten Commandments should be displayed publicly.

That's important. And we gather in big prayer meetings. Are you talking about me? So a lot of us read it and thought, Why are you coming after me like that?

So do you at least understand why people have felt this was an attack directly on their faith and on the authority of Scripture? I think that um A lot of people read into it what they wanted to read. And I think that. I mean, I'm going to be, I'm not going to pull any punches today. I think there is a sect, you know, or a group of Christians.

Cool. Um have this sense of victimology. that that they are constantly under attack. And then they turn around and say, America is a Christian nation. And you sort of can't have it both ways.

I mean, that that they'll spend forever talking about how someone's saying happy holidays. Is an attack on Christianity. And for those people, yeah, I can see how. They would that anything. that discusses Christianity.

Uh uh would be an attack on them. But if you if you actually think about what I'm what I'm writing. and what I'm saying. Um and how I'm saying it. Um Am I writing about God's fraud?

Yes. Am I writing about cafeteria Christians? Yeah. Am I writing about your listener? It depends.

Are you writing about me? Are you writing about me? That would be a good sign. I don't think so. Given what I know about you, I do not believe.

I Yeah. Um and that comes from our discussion. Um, you know, the uh The uh, but there are clearly Christians. I mean, the number of Christians. You know, self-proclaimed Christians who tell me they have read the entire Bible.

And then I ask them five questions and they can't answer any of them. Yeah. And we're talking like really simple questions. I'm not trying to say, you know, biblical trivial pursuit. Um And it becomes very clear that they haven't read the Bible.

And as I keep going through the questioning, You know, you really have to stand back and say, What kind of purpose It's live. about having read having read the entire Bible.

Now, there are others who say You know, I've never been able to read the whole thing. I've gone through a lot of it. I got to do it. I've got to. You know, I've done some Bible studies.

I don't understand a lot of this. It's very, you know, a very honest thing because there's a lot of parts of the Bible. that are very difficult to understand. And there are part that are difficult to reconcile with each other. This is not.

This is not a. This is not an anti-viable chain. Mm-hmm. Great.

So would you let me let me just ask this then. Would would you be happy? If as a result of your article Christians studied the Bible more seriously and sought to live by the teachings of the Bible more rigorously and more consistently. Would you feel good if that was a result of your article and then my response and that was the end result of it? Absolutely.

I mean that one of one of the part I and actually, but let me go even a little bit further. Um My article. was an attack on biblical hypocrisy. Uh-huh. Bad.

That shows up the most. being the political application of Christianity. Um and You know, when you have people Kuwa Fay. you know Here is this one piece that is absolute because I heard.

Somebody somewhere tell me that. But I don't know what the next phrase in the sentence is. They're hypocrites. Um, and if If people would Read the Bible. Contemplate their relationship with God.

Recognize that their relationship with God. is not what some other person tells them. The Bible is not what some other person tells them. The words are there. Uh I think you know, one of the things that Tell you what, I'm just going to jump in, hold that thought, we'll come back to it on the other side of the break.

Do I agree with Kurt Eichenwaul that there is a plague of biblical illiteracy in the church, in the evangelical church today? Absolutely. Do I agree that there's a lot of hypocrisy? Absolutely. There's two points of agreement.

You are listening to a previously recorded broadcast.

burning cleansing It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Welcome back, friends, to the line of fire.

I'm speaking with Newsweek journalist Kurt Eichenwald wrote the controversial article, The Bible So Misrepresented, It's a Sin. I wrote a response to that article. I was pleased to hear from the Newsweek editors at the end of last week and over the weekend that the response article was getting a lot of attention. It had been the most shared article for a couple of days, and right now it's second most shared of the week and second most read.

So the response is getting out. And from everyone that's contacted me at Newsweek, they're really happy to have the dialogue. And they said that's that's one reason the article was published in the first place.

So I've got the man that would know Kurt. Tell us the truth. You said you're not going to pull punches. Was there a genuine intent on the part of Newsweek to spark a dialogue with your controversial article? Absolutely.

Um and uh in fact one of the What's that? One of the most serious problems we had. We didn't want to be in a situation where we said, okay, now we want to hear a response, because we knew we would get bombarded by people. And one of the most serious problems we have. was finding um We were reading all of the things that were being written in Sponge.

Finding someone who was writing something or who said something. That wasn't simply Uh you know, a a vicious attack on our intent or our intelligence or Or, or especially, you know, people, anybody who engaged in just pure diatribe, anybody who And there are quite a number of these who just completely misrepresented what the article said and then attacked that misrepresentation. Uh and there were some I'm not gonna name them, but there were some pretty High-level biblical leaders who, when you read what they said, I said. I really scratched my head going, what are you telling your people that the Bible says? Because if you can't get you know, an 8,000-word article, right?

It was quite amazing. And so, and then we had evangelicals who agreed with us, and we didn't, you know, we didn't want that. And so really the first person we came across Cool was clearly interested. in a response and who was clearly interested in the discussion and And presenting something Bad. would open up debate was you.

So that's that's that's why we invited you to do it. Got it. Yeah, and that's, of course, what connected us to talk off the air and now on the air. All right, so I've written for years, and many of the evangelical leaders I know have bemoaned the same fact that there is a lot of... scriptural illiteracy in this generation, not just the younger generation that's so digitally oriented and short attention span, but the older generation.

A Barner survey repeated over the years has indicated that a tiny percentage of Americans have what he would call a biblical worldview, and maybe 20% of professing born-again Christians have what would be called the biblical worldview.

So we agree on that, that a lot of followers of Jesus that say the Bible is the word of God are not spending a lot of time studying the scriptures seriously. And then secondly, the hypocrisy in our midst. I steadfastly oppose redefining marriage. I put marriage in quotes when it's with same-sex relations, but I've said for years that no fault, heterosexual divorce in the church has done far more to destroy marriage than all gay activists combined.

So certainly, a lot of finger pointing that goes in the wrong direction.

So I want to get back to you on this issue of hypocrisy. We'll talk about our areas of agreement. first and then we'll begin to flesh out where I feel that you are undermining the authority of Scripture itself. We're raising questions and we'll go back and forth on that. But back to you on the issue of hypocrisy.

You know, one of the moments that I found quite uh amazing in my life. And as you know, there are there are as we've discussed My journey has been one of a series of experiences. And that, you know, I'm not somebody who was simply born, told what to believe, and believed in. You know, I have really been someone who has had his own journey. And one of the elements of that journey that's you know, was again a a I really have to write this.

was when um there was a uh Uh Minister. And in taxes. Who had been divorced twice. Why? And who got up to condemn homosexual marriage as undermining marriage?

And, you know, I knew. He had children who were living with two with You know, two different lives. who he saw on visitation days. And my thought was, how dare you? How dare you even pretend?

to be representing. the sanctity of marriage because you don't. And, you know, the um You know Jesus, Jesus was quite clear. Uh That You know, that if you divorce and remarry, except in instances of infidelity. uh that you are committing adultery.

Did you take this word sick? You believe Jesus really said that, Kurt, and you take that seriously. What I believe is that it is that Jesus is quoted as saying this in the Bible.

Okay. And I take very seriously those things that Jesus says in the Bible. Um I Do not. believe and this is where everybody's going to start to get angry at me. Uh People have told me.

That I want to stick with the new test in that.

Okay, good. There there's other arguments when it comes down to the Old Testament. People have told me. that the New Testament is the generic word of God. Um People.

Nowhere. in the New Testament. Does it make reference to itself?

Nowhere in the New Testament does it say the New Testament is the inerrant word of God. And so When I look at The words of Jesus. And I compare them, let's say, to the words of Paul, and I would say there are contradictions. Between them. a significant contradiction.

Um How do you resolve that? And how do you how do you say you know, when I mean let me go let me go to one point. Because this is a this is a tell you what yeah let's let's let's hold that we'll focus on that one specific point just with our our radio segments and breaks but I I just just want to Affirm a couple of things again for people who don't know you. You are a baptized Episcopalian. Is that correct?

Yeah. And you were baptized when you were in your 20s, right? Yeah. Right and and And you do believe that we should take the words of Jesus as best as we understand what he said, that we should take those words very seriously. Yeah.

All right, I just saying this not to question you because we chat it off the air. I'm saying this for the benefit of our listeners to better understand who we're dealing with. Then you go back and read the article, you'll still differ, but at least you understand where he's coming from.

Okay, I've got an hour and a half more to talk with Kurt. I know many of you can't listen straight through to all of it. Go to the website, askdrbrown.org, A-S-K-D-R-Brown.org. Click on latest broadcast later today to catch the entire show. And make sure while you're there, Check out our special resource offer the Messianic Jewish.

Family Bible, the Tree of Life version, watch the video about it, find out whether this is a Bible you and your family really should have and really get into. You are listening to a previously recorded broadcast.

It's the line of fire with your host, activist, author, international speaker, and theologian Dr. Michael Brown. Your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34TRUT. Here again is Dr.

Michael Brown. Welcome back to the line of fire, 866-342. A little while, we will get to your calls. We may hear from some of the biblical scholars and theologians who differed with Kurt Eichmoll's article in Newsweek. We may be hearing from some of them later in the broadcast as well.

So, Kurt, right before the break, you wanted to raise what you felt was a substantial contradiction between Jesus and Paul.

Now, you may not be aware of this, but it's a very common Jewish objection to Jesus.

Well, Jesus was really all right. We don't know exactly who he was, but he wasn't too bad. He was a good Jewish teacher. It's Paul who changed everything.

So, I responded to that in my book, The Real Kosher Jesus, where I took up the challenge by my friend, my debating friend, Rabbi Shmuly Botayach, who said that Paul's the one who started everything and changed it all, and Jesus was a good Jewish teacher. And then in volume four of my series on answering Jewish objections to Jesus, I look at similarities in the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul and lay those out side by side for folks to see. But what you wanted to raise what you felt was a substantial contradiction.

So let's start to get into some specifics now.

So it's Um I think Now I want to be very clear about something because this is something people do not seem to understand. I am not advocating anything. I am not saying this is the portion of the Bible to follow, or this is what people should believe. Um I think that Truthfully, that's none of my business. What I do think is my business is well not my business.

So I do think is important Yeah. that people contemplate these things. that they try and resolve them in their own heads. without just dismissing it because it doesn't fit with what they want to believe. But you know, let's take a couple of things, and I think this is.

Um, you know, you have in you have in Matthew 5, 18. uh Jesus saying that you know, until that I don't know which Bible I'm quoting, I think it's the new American standard, but until the until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest jot or tittle will shall pass from the law. That's, you know, pretty, pretty clear. Yep. At the end, and this one I did have marked, so I just picked up my Bible.

You have God. Quoted Bang. If you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, And if you reject my decrees and abhorred my laws and failed to carry out Oh my command. and so violate my covenant, then I will do this to you. I will bring upon you sudden terror.

And then it goes on from there, telling many terrible things.

So Jesus says, I'm not here to change the law. God says, if you do not follow what I have laid out in Leviticus, Spark is finished. Not just not just.

some one phrase on homosexuality. that everyone seems to invoke. Start to finish. If you do not follow this. I am God and I say I will punish you.

Than Paul. A man. never met Jeeku. a man who actually Uh uh oppressed and tortured Christian before his conversion. comes along and says All you need to do is believe.

in the resurrection of Jesus, and you don't need to follow We'll say a coi.

Well, I stand back from that. You know, and this is pretty complicated. Who is Paul but he's saying God made him a today? If if this was not what God intended. If God If God basically change his mind.

Um Because well, I mean, we start with this, at the title of Lev Leviticus. Did God know what was going to happen in the future? God knows what happened. Right, and if Jesus comes along and changes what the Torah says, then we shouldn't follow him if he abolishes it. And then if he is the real Messiah, if Jesus is the real Messiah, then Paul can't be a real follower of the Messiah and come along and change it all.

All right, I've wrestled with these issues, of course, for many years and written about them, so I'm gonna give you my response, and then we'll have some extended segments. You are listening to a previously recorded broadcast.

It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

I'm speaking with Newsweek journalist Kurt Eichenwald wrote the controversial Christmas-timed cover story article, The Bible's So Misrepresented, It's a Sin. Newsweek graciously printed my lengthy rebuttal, my response, which you can read. You read both best by going to Newsweek.com and you'll see my article listed on the right side under Most Shared, Most Read, and my article. We'll also link to Kurt's article.

So Kurt, you raised a major question about Jesus, Paul, and the law. And I'll give you the immediate response. 1 Matthew 5, 17, Jesus says he didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill.

So for example, blood sacrifices and offerings, we don't need those anymore because Jesus went to the cross to fulfill the purpose of those sacrifices. He took the moral and sexual standards of the Torah to a higher level.

So instead of just don't commit adultery, it was don't think lustfully in your own heart. Instead of don't murder, it even goes further. Yes, don't murder, but don't have hate. hatred in your heart for others, murderous hatred and anger. When it comes to specifics of the law, God never called Gentiles to keep the Mosaic law.

And Paul was combating the idea that Gentiles were required to keep the law of Moses.

So he writes to the Galatians and says, if you as a Gentile are trying to please God by being circumcised and keep the law of Moses, then you're misunderstanding grace, that you receive salvation as a gift. By grace, through what Jesus did. But when you go to the book of Acts, Kurt, you see that Paul himself actually lived by the law, understanding though that Jesus had given us a new and better covenant. Remember, the Sinai covenant failed not because it was imperfect, but because the people were imperfect.

So we ended up with the temple destroyed. We ended up with our people, Jewish people, as I'm a Jew, I say, our people in exile. Jesus comes to give a new and better covenant, and now we know the terms of that covenant that are laid out. through the rest of the New Testament as God writes his laws on their heart. And you have to remember that the first followers of Jesus that knew him and that knew the other Jewish apostles also communed with Paul and he was considered a brother as well from all the early literature that we have.

We see there's a lot of harmony. And then there were groups that differed and pitted one against another. And the feeling that I had, just to be candid with you, and again, we've had our cordial conversation. I hope to have more and sit down face to face in the future. But my feeling was this, that if there was a possible contradiction, rather than looking at how to resolve it to say, okay, can these things be honestly and realistically resolved?

Instead, you would look at the contradiction and say, oh, we can't really trust what we're reading. That's why many people took your article to be a direct attack on the Bible itself. I I but you'll notice I never said that. You know, the the the effort of what I was talking about. You know, if you really want to go down to Uh Um where this was coming from.

Um was you know, Jesus's admonition Against judging others, which I'll admit, now I'm being a hypocrite. But you're the judge, right? And somebody said, you're being a hypocrite. I was like, I totally admit it, I am.

Okay. Uh uh Yeah. Don't Get the plank out of your own eye before you can look at the splinter in your brother's eye. And we don't live by that. Uh We are You know, we are always.

condemning others. Yeah, we You know, when you have a church, I'll take I'll take an example that I find to be deeply offensive. I don't think God needs our help in determining. You know, who or who is not going to be admitted to the kingdom of God? I think God is perfectly capable of making that decision.

But And I also believe that Every individual's relationship with God is individual. that it is theirs, that God speaks to them.

However, God speaks to them. And that But now we have lots of people. and lots of churches. That will say Oh. You're gay.

Therefore, you cannot have communion. And just to take that one example. Data is there. Album. Dare they intervene?

between as a as a person. intervene between An individual Between an individual and his or her relationship with God, particularly since. When you're dealing with You know, the issues of homosexuality, and this is what I'm talking about. people being you know, picking and choosing. Um you know, you have people If you've got them.

if you are disobedient with your parents. if you're not trustworthy. If you if you debate All of these things are cited. In 1 Timothy and in Romans as being on par. They're more of the same parasetical phrases.

And homosexuality.

Now I would say that one Timothy is not 100% clear. about that, it's talking about homosexuality, Roman is clear. But um that in Romans 1, we can discuss other passages, but in Romans 1, Paul categorically speaks against homosexual practice. Um He actually, I think it goes a little bit further. He talks about man lusting in his heart for other men.

But He also speaks about a dozen other things. Oh, okay, yeah, and we'll talk later on about the question of is there a hierarchy of sins. But back to your point, it's the...

Okay. All right.

So we'll discuss that issue a little later. But let's focus in on this question then, all right? When you say that we don't have the right to judge another person, and you admit it to your own hypocrisy of now turning around and judging others and judging their relationship with God or whether they're God spokes.

Sorry, I appreciate your candor. That's something I search my heart for on a regular basis in terms of double standards and picking one thing over another. But Jesus also says... In John 7, 24 Don't judge by outward appearance, but make righteous judgment. We know without making judgments, we can't even function in the world.

You see things that seem hypocritical to you, that are offensive to you. Or we look at human trafficking, we all judge that to be evil. We look at what ISIS is doing, beheading others, we all judge that to be evil. And we don't know what motivates everyone to do what they do, but we certainly say this is an evil act, this is a wrong act. And then in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul lays out that if you have the very issue of public hypocrisy must be judged.

That if someone claims to be a follower of Jesus and say this man has left his wife and he's living in adultery and he's now showing up at your church service with his wife, the wife's sitting there with the kids, okay, and he comes in with the woman he's sleeping with and he's not married to, and he says, Praise the Lord, I'm free in Jesus. I want to receive communion. Paul says, no, no, you don't even eat with that person.

So there are times when if someone is guilty of blatant unrepentant sin and we reach out and they refuse to repent, that we are supposed to judge them, meaning say, okay, right now, you are not right with God. You are not right with the body. You're not right with your wife and family. You need to repent. Do you have a problem with that kind of righteous judgment?

Absolutely. Absolutely. And the reason why... is because Um, you know, once again, Yeah. I the way I put it is Jesus Trump's Paul.

Yeah. Paul never met Jesus. He had a vision. Yeah, you claim to have it right, a personal encounter. And Jesus.

Jesus says Very simple words. Judge not. He then talks about you know, the hypocrisy of criticizing another person. without looking at you know, your own failing. And that's what the whole you know, plank and splinter arguably.

Portrayalist. It's it's a very, very simple instruction. And when we turn around and say, well, but Jesus was really unclear. No, that was not unclear. But he goes on a few verses later and warns against false prophets.

and tells people to beware of false prophets.

So you have to make a judgment. That this person is a false prophet. No, no, no, no, no. That's a completely different thing. What that means.

You know, being a false prophet. And being Agaka. Or being a homosexual, or being a debater, are very, very different things. I mean, you know, warnings against false prophets. But how do you know who the false prophet is?

You just said there's not a hierarchy of sins. It seems like you just. made it there but tell you what False profit. Are are those If you're looking at someone who have their own individual behavior. They're not a for-profit.

You know, I am not a prophet. You are not a prophet. No matter how we live our lives. And so What? What I am saying.

what Jesus is speaking about. And it is very clear in his words. He is speaking about our exploration of ourselves. All right, so if, right, if, just got a break, if I examine myself, rightly judge myself, then Paul, Jesus, Jesus says, I can then help you with your problem. You are listening to a previously recorded broadcast.

What's right. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Thanks for joining us on the line of fire. If you've not read Kurt Eichenwal's article in Newsweek that got a massive amount of attention and a ton of criticism, and I'm sure from other circles, a ton of affirmation, it is called The Bible So Misrepresented, It's a Sin. And then my lengthy rebuttal. Probably a little bit longer than the initial article itself because I quoted a lot of the initial article is my response to Newsweek's article on the Bible. You can read them both by going to newsweek.com.

You'll find my article referenced on the right as you scroll down, and then my article will link to Kurt's article. Read those side by side, because even with extensive radio dialogue, there's only so far we can go in covering issues. I'm just going to interrupt the flow of conversation we were in to at least get one call in this first hour. Dennis and San Luis Obispo, California, you're on the line of fire for my guest, Kurt Eichenwald. Thank you, Michael and Kurt.

This is a very important subject. I appreciate your leadership, Michael, your knowledge. Kurt, you know, I'd have to say, you know, um I really hope and trust that you're speaking. From ignorance and not willful misrepresentation of the Bible. I think your article so misrepresents the Bible, it is a sin.

Certainly there are is a hierarchy of sin. Jesus said to Pilate, he who has delivered me unto you has committed the greater And Jesus and Paul are clearly in line with one another. dedicated your life to a humble submission. To the will of God and the Holy Spirit. and dedicated your life to the search of Scripture, you can see that they're in harmony.

Jesus, when he said, he said, That till heaven and earth passed, one jot Or one title shall in no wise pass from the law. And then he gives a caveat: until all Yeah. fulfilled. Jesus on the cross said to Telestai, it is Finished. Christ fulfilled the law.

He established a higher law, the new covenant, which encapsulates the old law. into the new covenant, into an everlasting covenant to an everlasting law. Kurt, will you please not speak on a subject that you really do not have the knowledge base to speak on with authority. I trust that your heart Will respond to the Holy Spirit and you will repent of this misinformation that you're putting out. You're attacking the very foundation.

Let me ask you, okay, okay, I get your point. Let me ask you: can you cite something in the article that you say is wrong? The idea of translations of translations of translations is a mass representation of the very reliable, extant manuscript evidence that we have that we can scientifically easily. Do you know what? The the King James Version of the Bible was translated from?

What language? Yes, I do. From the Greek language, yeah. No, it was translated from last. And in fact No, no, no, it the the gr the the King James Version of the Bible translated from Latin.

And when they found portions of it, that were in conflict with the original Greek. And again, they didn't have the original Greek. They had copies of copies of copies. And that's, you know, tha that's not a surprise. They didn't have methods of preserving paper for hundreds and hundreds of years.

And so when they were working off that and they found conflict. between the Latin and the Greek. They assumed that the Greek was incorrect, that it was a copying error. And so they went with the last. This is true.

Now whether you want to believe that or not. That is a fact.

Now, then you have what most people will, you know, some people will read the King James Bible. And at that I'll say, okay. You're you're pretty much done. Uh when you go further. And you get to some of these newer Bible.

Um they Yeah. Take one very very important first. in terms of for for many reasons. And this will be a little graphic, but it's right out of the Bible. This is Hebrews 11:11.

back in the time of Back in biblical times, it was believed, including by people like. Hypocrites. It was believed that Uh women produce semen just like that. And in the original Uh in the original three W in Hebrews 11, 11. It talks about how Sarah uh uh gain the strength to produce to concede of seed.

And it goes on, and that stays in the Bible. It stays. It's um In the earliest translations, it was in the Geneva Bible of 1560. And it wasn't until the 1960s. when it became very clear You know, when it was known forever, well, not forever, when it was known for hundreds of years, that this belief from biblical times was scientifically wrong.

that in the late that in the nineteen sixties to the nineteen eighties, That these words were just dropped. And And so you end up with a scenario. Are people who are reading? Bible. when they get to Hebrews 11, 11.

Unless they're reading the King James Version. They are not reading. What the Bible Yeah. from Greek to Latin. The English.

They're reading a new variation. where people who were confronted with a difficulty And it is a difficult because it's scientifically wrong. When they were confronted with a difficulty, they dropped it. They have no footnotes. They have no indications that they dropped it.

Um All right, so tell you what, let me resolve that difficulty very simply. The first thing, the Hebrew word zerah, just like the Greek word sperma, can simply refer to offspring in general.

So, for example, Genesis 3.15, it talks about the Zerah of the woman. It doesn't mean that she has a seed because it's never said that a seed, sperm, proceeds from the woman. That's always male and only male in the scripture. What it is, is that the word...

Well, okay, tell you what, we'll pick that up. But I mean, I've got all my Hebrew and Greek right in front of me. But the fact is, a woman does not have a Zerah in terms of a biological seed. She has a zerah meaning offspring. That's the generic word for offspring or sperma.

But the other thing is, as I'm just holding in my hand textual commentary in the Greek New Testament by Brutz Metzger, there's just a manuscript difference that's ancient in terms of the word sperma in Romans 11, 11.

So the question is, is it talking about Abraham, those are talking about Sarah. And that's the debate, and then it's based on a couple of different words. But it's a textual question that we have in front of us. There was absolutely no biological error with that. All right, friends, we are out of time for this hour.

Dennis, thank you for calling in. Kurt, thanks for your answer. But we've got another hour to go. We are just getting started. We're starting to get into the real differences here.

Whatever you missed to the show, go to my website, ask Dr. Brown, A-S-K-D-R-Brown.org. All right.

I want to give Kurt an opportunity to rebut what I was saying. We'll have to do it in the next hour. Click on latest broadcast to catch all of the show later today. And be sure to click on the special resource offer. Find out about the Messianic Jewish Family Bible.

Watch the video on it. I believe it'll be a tremendous blessing to you. And Kurt and I agree. Newsweek and I agree. We want people to read the Bible more.

My bottom line today is this. The Word of God tells us over and over, seek, seek, and you will find. Seek earnestly. God rewards those who seek Him earnestly. Study the Word earnestly and you will be richly rewarded.

You are listening to a previously recorded broadcast.

Well it was right at Christmas time. Newsweek came out with a major cover story on the Bible saying it is so misrepresented, it is a sin. Generated a firestorm of criticism. Newsweek allowed me to write a major rebuttal and now we have with us on the line of fire the journalist who wrote that very article. It's time for the line of fire with your host, activist, author, international speaker, and theologian, Dr.

Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Michael Brown is the director of the Coalition of Conscience and president of Fire School of Ministry. Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH. That's 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr.

Michael Brown. All right, I have been talking for an hour now with my guest, veteran journalist Kurt Eichenwald, who wrote the article, The Bible's So Misrepresented, It's a Sin. I took strong exception to the article. Newsweek graciously printed a lengthy rebuttal of mine to the article. And Newsweek and Kurt have told me that, yes, their desire is to get people to study the Bible more, read the Bible more.

So we're going to dive right in. If you have a question for Kurt, I request if you differ with him, you do so respectfully. You don't want to... to trash your Christian witness in the name of loving God and loving the Bible, do you? But you can call in at 866-34TRUT.

That's 866-348-7884. We'll get to your calls shortly. I want to dive right back in and press a couple of points, Kurt, and give you the opportunity to respond. One is that the translations leading up to the King James, Tyndale, for example, Geneva Bible, they were working, these were scholars working with the Hebrew and the Greek texts. The Vulgate was always an important translation, but they were working with the originals.

If you read the preface to the original King James of 1611, it talks a lot about the original text, but more importantly, all modern versions are going back to the Hebrew, to the Greek, to the manuscripts we have, and we believe they were remarkably well preserved.

So I just want to address that. Do you agree that the modern translations are using the best copies that we have available of ancient manuscripts? And then wanted to give you the opportunity to respond to my statement that the Bible never talks about a female having seed biologically. That would be sperm, which is only for the male. But it does talk about having seed in terms of offspring.

I want to give you an opportunity to respond to those points. Um Okay. Uh the um the uh uh I'm sorry, I lost you on the first point. I don't have the world's greatest memory, so I'm not sure. All right, well, let's focus.

Let's focus on the seed question. I said that even all the way back to Genesis 3:15, when it talks about the woman and her seed, it means offspring. The word Zara or sperma in Greek can mean offspring generically. But then we'll talk about a man spilling his seed. It never talks about a woman doing that because she doesn't have a seed in that sense.

So you allege that Hebrews 11:11 presented a problem as if Sarah had physical seed like sperm. And I said, That's actually not what it was saying.

So did you want to respond to that? I think if you, once you go past the King James Version. In other words, you know, get back in time. Uh the Latin version is going to be the closest thing we have. And Please forgive my Latin.

My Latin is based on reading, not on speaking. I don't speak Latin. But in Hebrews 11, 11, it talks about Pharaoh, Zira, Duna, Duna mean ice, capital. Obeline herbato. But steam Uh Sparrow received the sterile power.

conception of speed. Uh that was Translated. Um All the way through the King James Version. Mm-hmm. as being um Uh exactly what people at the time this The Hebrews was written.

week. What's that? Men and women both produce semen. Uh And so when you have In the Latin of Hebrews 11, 11, it's there. But then when you get past nineteen sixties, The complexity is Yeah.

As long as you understand though that the point is that seed, sperm, can also mean offspring. There's no issue. It's easy. It's just her offspring, her seed. And I think most understand what seed means then.

You are listening to a previously recorded broadcast.

It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Welcome back, friends, to the line of fire.

I'm having friendly interaction with Kurt Eichenwald, Newsweek veteran journalist. Here's what we agree on: We agree that Christians need to study the Bible more carefully. We agree that many Christians are superficial in their study of the Word and don't even know any of the issues with the transmission and translation of the biblical text. And we agree that there's much hypocrisy among those who say the Bible is the Word of God. We agree on that.

Now we're pressing in on areas of disagreement.

So, Kurt, let's press in on one of your statements that I singled out and others have singled out. You said no television preacher has ever read the Bible, neither has any evangelical politician, neither has the Pope, neither have I, neither have you. At best, we've all read a bad translation, a translation of translations of translations of translations of hand copies, of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.

So I'm holding, I've got them on my desk stacked up: Hebrew Bible, Greek New Testament. Actually, you did one thing that I didn't intend, and I think that. Uh perhaps I should have been clearer in that sense. I wasn't talking about the Old Testament. I was only talking about the New Testament.

All right, you gave me four translations there. I was only referencing three.

Okay, so I'm holding in my hand a Greek New Testament, and then on the bottom it has the bottom of the text, it references any textual variants. And as you know, and mentioned in the article, the vast majority are insignificant. It would be like spelling MR. M-I-S-T-E-R or M-R or M-R with a dot, not affecting the overall sense. There's no essential Christian doctrine that's ultimately in dispute over textual questions.

Even Professor Bart Ehrman, whom you quote, and who would be very skeptical about things that I take with assurance, he has said that there's no essential Christian doctrine at stake. But uh I didn't play that either.

Okay, right, right.

So we're reiterating that. When when scholars today are translating the New Testament, they take this Greek New Testament, which is not A copy of a translation of a translation of a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy. It represents manuscripts that are copies of copies of copies, some of them going back way back. We may even have part of Mark, a fragment from Mark, going back to the end of the first century, which is remarkable. But we have what, about 5,700 classified New Testament Greek manuscripts.

Then we have Thousands, tens of thousands of quotes of the Greek New Testament by the church fathers, some in Greek, some in Latin translation, but we have tons in Greek from the Greek-speaking fathers. We have all these manuscripts, then we have the translations of these, so we can really know with accuracy. in in the vast majority of cases, what the the the Greek manuscripts read.

So we're going straight from say a copy of a copy, maybe of a copy, straight from there. to English.

So where do you get that all we have at best Is a bad translation, a translation of translations of translations. Of hand copies of copies of the- Maybe one extra translation again. Um one of the things Yeah. this comes down to Is Uh what Bibles are we dealing with? One of the things that I find to be uh probably the the most misinformed concept.

Um people who consider themselves to be very knowledgeable Christians. is that the Bible was a book. I'm sorry, the the New Testament was a book in Greek. That was translated, and that's that. And that it was a book handed down in total from God.

And that just. is not what happened. And the Bibles that Um uh Our Absolute. There are very few people who are using a Bible that is a direct translation from the Greek. Oh wait, hang on.

Let's take all the best-selling modern English versions, the NIV. The ESV. The NASB The new King James. The CSB Let's just list those, okay? Because those are selling by millions and millions and millions and millions.

Every single one of them. as a careful translation of the New Testament now, the Greek straight into English. There's nothing in between. It's not a translation of a translation of a copy of a copy of a translation. It's straight from, I mean, every single one of them.

That's but it is hold on hold on hold on. But it is you know regardless of how how close it is, it is a copy of the copy. of a copy of a copy. And what uh the point of that is not to say Um Well, the Bible should be relied upon. The point of that is to say the Bible is not what People think that think that it is.

In other words, you have an overly simplistic approach as if the English Bible you're reading just dropped down from heaven on your desk and that there's not a process of transmission and translation. Yes, I mean I've had people who have said, look, it says right here, and I'm looking at a word. And go, I mean, I'll be honest. One of the words I was dealing with someone who. Um uh Through their kid out of the house because he was gay.

And they produce their Bible and right there in the Bible it says Homosexual. And I said Vote. You do realize that the word homosexual didn't exist until the late nineteenth century. You know, this word was not in the Bible.

Now If people believe which they are I am I am not challenging anyone's belief. But if people believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, Um Then the last thing we should do. doing is changing. changing it to make it more understandable to modern people. Changing it.

It should be. As close to what the original was as possible. I'd actually even go a little bit further. is if people truly believe So that. The Bible is God works.

And the best possible representation of that. is in the original Greek. I don't understand why people aren't off learning how to translate Greek. Right.

Well, you realize that's what we do in our Bible schools and seminaries: that people almost everyone. Right, right. But I'm saying that it's tough to pick up another language. I mean, this is serious too. I don't know if you can read Greek.

Oh, have have you have you learned Greek? No, I haven't. Ah, all right.

So look, it's not so easy. Don't judge others. See, you're being hypocritical there, right? Currently? Because you're saying you're serious about the Bible, but not serious enough to learn Greek, and now you're judging others for not being serious enough to learn Greek.

But look, here's the fact. Unless you're really going to devote years and years and years of years of study, you're not going to learn it on the level that a scholar will learn it. And look, when someone uses the word homosexual today, I prefer to say men who have sex with men, because that's explicitly with the Greek term, the prominent one that's used in 1 Corinthians 6, 9, together with another term that would suggest it's talking about the passive and the active partners in the Acts. And that's why there are even gay and lesbian scholars who say, no doubt, Paul spoke against homosexual acts. Jesus died for everyone the same.

He died for heterosexual and homosexual the same, shed the same blood, offers the same salvation and new life, but he forbids certain practices.

So when someone says homosexuals, Homosexual, homosexual practice, all they're trying to do is say, in biblical days, This is how the author expressed it. How can we communicate that today? Because sometimes words change in meaning over the centuries, and what meant something at one time in our culture in the English language may mean something very different.

So you have to stay on top of that. But let's just clarify that. I disagree with that. I disagree because I think that Everyone is perfectly K. I have kept saying the King James version.

you know, is the gold standard of English, of the English Bible. at least of the ones that people can gain access to. Yeah, but it's not it's not the most widely read now. It's an extraordinarily beautiful, powerful English rendition. And the translators did look at the original text, the Hebrew and Greek, and much of it is magnificent, but then at other points it's not perfect.

We have much better knowledge now of the languages. We have more and more manuscripts. But do you understand, though, that there's a science To textual criticism, that's not just arbitrary, or a scholar says, I don't like this or that, and that going through this careful science, you can ultimately say, okay, with real confidence, we can say that these are the words that Matthew recorded or that Paul wrote.

Now you could say, Do we agree with them or not? But do you understand that there's a science? behind this fact, let me, I'll remind you, because you said your memory's not that good, we got a break here, and then I want to take some calls as well. But do you understand that through the science of textual criticism, that scholars can compare manuscript, manuscript, manuscript, and we have so many. Thousands and thousands and thousands that out of all the ancient books in the ancient world, the one that's best preserved.

is the New Testament. In other words, I can go to the text with confidence rather than with fear that I don't really know what they said.

So I'll get your response, sir, when we come back. You are listening to a previously recorded broadcast.

Burning, cleansing flame. See And the fire. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34TRUTH.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. All right, returning to my guest Newsweek journalist Kurt Eichenwald. Kurt, just want to find out. If you Agree with me.

that through the abundance of manuscripts we have and through textual criticism, which is a scientific process, that we can be confident that the manuscripts that we have now are very close to what the originals were, or in your mind, are we far away, we really can't tell what the originals were. Oh, no, I'm not I'm not sa well. Uh Those are two questions.

Okay. Are they close to what the originals were? This looked more than likely. Uh uh do we know what the originals were? No, we don't.

But, you know, that that again, those are those are two different points. And um The uh when I'm when I'm discussing that And again, this is sort of something people have misunderstood. I am not claiming. Bad. Well, they're there.

translation issues, there are copy issues.

So therefore, don't rely on the viable. Uh what I'm saying is Start off with the belief. that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. You know, that this is God's word translated by man. And so the most important thing to know.

Yeah. What does it say? And what that means is, you can't simply pick up any old Bible. and say, well, I read this, so it's okay. You know, you need to pick up a Bible that is the closest translation to the original.

Um you and people don't even know that there's a difference. They don't even I mean, for example, one of the things I've been most uh attacks for is suggesting that there are parts of the Bible. That um are disputed writings that people have long argued uh may not have been written by the people Uh that They pretend to have been written from. You know, 2 Peter, 2 and 3, John. Hebrews itself, the one we were talking about.

Uh, the aspect of Paul, and this is not me saying this. If you go back. in time to the earliest of church history. And again, I apologize. Most of my knowledge comes from reading, not from.

Oh, same with me, Carl. I constantly mispronounce people's names on the air that are in the news because I just read it. I don't hear it or see it.

So don't worry about it. You're following in my footsteps by mispronouncing names. Go ahead.

Okay. But, you know, in in uh uh the Bishop of Gijara, Tutaria. uh Eusebius, who wrote the church history. in three twenty five. He wrote about.

uh the disputed writing. There's actually a name for it. Zan Telegoria. And, you know. The fact that this is has been a debate within the church.

It has been something studied by theology. for centuries. It has been something that you know, with the emergence of more and more Greek you know, earlier Greek manuscripts. we know more and more about What? What?

What was originally there and have the ability to check certain items against certain items. Uh and for me to simply say Thanks, Ken. a a a debate that has gone on. Yeah. you know, 325 and then somebody sends me a A tweet saying I'm a heretic.

Well, that's just fundamental ignorance. It means they don't even know church history. I understand that. And that's sort of one of the basic points. Actually, I want to go to one topic because I think it's the topic you and I have the biggest disagreement on.

All right, but hang on. We'll definitely major on that. And I want us to do it. Again, I just want to give a context because as we talked. then I better understood what you were saying.

For example, a homosexual issue. I took you to be saying one thing. Your point was a little bit different.

So we dialogued about that before I wrote my lengthy rebuttal. Actually, in the midst of it, you were a gentleman to say, hey, if you want to reach non-evangelicals, and all my listeners that thanked me for the article and said, what a great job I did, I want you to know that Kurt personally went through the article. Here I am rebutting him. He was gentleman enough. to go through the article and say, hey, if you want to reach non-evangelicals and your greater Newsweek readership, I'd suggest this, this, this, this.

So I appreciate that. I thought that's a noble thing to do.

So thank you for doing it. But here's the context. I fully agree that your average believer doesn't know that there was ever a debate about the authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy. Was there really Paul? Liberal scholars question it.

Conservative scholars say it was Paul. Folks can read D.A. Carson to get a good perspective on that. 2 Peter, 2 Peter, a forgery in Peter's name. Was it really written by Peter?

Yeah, these things. Are debated in seminaries by different scholars and theologians, and there were questions about some of the documents in the early church. We have the manuscripts, that's not the issue. We have the manuscripts, but there are questions about whether this was actually canonical scripture, and then ultimately it was agreed that it was. But yeah, these are questions, and to simply state that they're questions.

You do not deserve the attack for stating that. It's in the context of an article that says, quote, that the Bible is loaded with contradictions and translation errors, that it wasn't written by witnesses and includes words added by unknown scribes to inject orthodoxy. And quote, the Bible can't stop debunking itself.

So now when you put the other comments in that context, I think that's why people were calling you a heretic. Can you at least understand that when you look at it in the larger context of these other quotes? Um Well, I can understand whatever, you know, when you talk about someone's very strong belief. Uh uh You know, people have been called heretics throughout history. I mean, Galileo was called a heretic.

For um uh talking about heliocentrism. And he was also called a fool. He was also called a lot of things by the church. Um and he was convicted. Um and You know, it's What are the what is the reality?

here. And I think it's It's getting we're getting very close to Um one of my beliefs. Um And I said at the beginning, there's nothing in the New Testament. The fair look. That Um All of these all of this is divinely inspired.

There's nothing in the New Testament. The closest we have to a witness Who was there is Luke. You know, Paul Paul was not Paul never met Jesus.

So you're sure that John - have you read Richard Baucom's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, where he was one of the top scholarly books of the year when it came out a few years ago. But he really documents in massive scholarly detail how. How we can see that the Gospels came clearly from eyewitnesses. He's a brilliant, brilliant scholar, very learned man, fully aware of every dispute and question that you've raised, and you'd be impressed with the scholarship. But he's really demonstrated that we can reliably say these are eyewitness accounts.

And then, of course, Jesus says that his Spirit will remind the disciples, the apostles, of what he said, so that then they write it down, and then others come along that either were eyewitnesses or encountered Jesus, that the rest of the body received. That's how we're confident to these documents, but we're going to come back. We've got more ground to cover, and Kurt and I are going to get into a big area of difference about public prayer. I'm sure we're going to get to that. Stay tuned.

You are listening to a previously recorded broadcast.

It's the line of fire with your host, activist, author, international speaker, and theologian Dr. Michael Brown. Your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34TRU. Here again is Dr.

Michael Brown. All right, I want to get to some callers and then dive back in with some of the agreements, disagreements that Kurt and I are having. I'm speaking with Kurt Eichenwald, veteran journalist with Newsweek magazine. And it was his article that came out of Christmastime cover story that sparked so much controversy and criticism. And Newsweek printed my rebuttal to that.

Let's just grab a couple of calls, and then I want Kurt to make sure he gets to a major point. He wanted to raise Tony in Melbourne, Florida. Thanks for calling the line of fire. Thanks, Doctor Brown, for taking my call. And I want to thank doctor or mister Eichenwalsh for agreeing to be on the show.

Just in being completely candid. I appreciate him coming on, but I just hear a lot of back battling. I I think he should just admit that He's not a theologian, and he spoke presumptuously in a lot of areas. And someone of your caliber, Dr. Brown, who's, you know, who has PhDs.

in Semitic languages and theology. Obviously, those of us who know history and church history and Bible history aren't surprised by any of the um the claims he made. They they're a lot like the claims you hear at coffee shops or on back porches when you talk to people who philosophize. But I just think I'd have a lot more respect for Mr. Ockenwald instead of backpedaling and denying that he meant what he meant, to just say, hey, you know.

I I said some pro zones. And then lastly, I'll make this fast. I think it boils down to gay, uh the gay marriage issue. I think he's made it clear That at the heart of this, he just has a problem with what the Bible says about homosexuality. And I think a lot of people who mask their problems with scripture do so because they just have a problem with the morality of the Bible.

It's not that they. don't trust the Bible. They're not scholars. They haven't studied it out. They just don't like what the Bible says.

So they try to get rid of it by denying that it's valid.

So I just want to say, Dr. Mr. Eichenwald, thanks for coming on the show. But I think you need to admit to Dr. Brown and to the world that you made a mistake.

I'd have you know, I think that's a good thing. All right, Kurt, back to you. I completely disagree. I did not make a mistake. I would not you know, my point was, I mean, for example, take what take what you just said about homosexuality that I'm that I'm denying.

I don't I don't think I've ever even come close to saying that. What I have said is that Uh uh for example, One Timothy is pretty You know, I I th there are reasons to have doubts. Very significant reasons to have doubts that it was actually written by Paul, and it's pretty unclear regarding that. But in terms of Romans, Romans is very, very clear, and there is no doubt that it was written by Paul. And it is very clear about homosexuality.

My point. is not. whether or not these moral questions are in the Bible. My point is. If you are going to and criticize.

and point the finger and say, you may not take communion. Because You are violating This Parenthetical phrase of the Bible, and I'm not denying that. You are violating this parenthetical phrase of the Bible. I will now take a place between you and God. Stopping you from reaching out to God because I have decided that that one parenthetical phrase in a list.

Oh. 20 different things. is absolute. But all the other ones that I ignore. You know, am I an alcoholic?

Well that's so what if what if we hold to both though? Yeah, so so so what I've got if we have and if you'll notice if you'll notice in the piece I specifically say Hasidic Jews are perfectly welcome to discriminate against homosexuals. Because they they are clearly abiding. By You know, I mean, they're not going off and stoning children when there's food mouths. but they are perfectly abiding.

Bye. Word. of the Bible. Mike, if it's a As once make sure I trust you. I issue.

It would be impossible. Prosperity. It allows people to stand back. and condemn others. while folding their arms in pride and talking about how they're going to be lifted up.

All clear. If there's a hypocrisy issue, we can drive home all day because we agree. My point is, if my church fellowship says we will not give communion to someone practicing heterosexual fornication or homosexual sin, we're being equal. You are listening to a previously recorded broadcast.

It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-342. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Thanks for joining us, friends, on the line of fire, 866-348-7884. I've been on the air now for over an hour and a half, most all of that time with Kurt Eichenwald, who's been eager to come on the air. But first wanted to make sure I understood who he was, where he was coming from.

So I did that. We spoke off the air. It was very helpful. I'm really looking forward to getting to know Kurt better, just one-on-one as a friend, as we dialogue about these different issues and perspectives and where I take strong issue with many of his perspectives. We'll keep talking.

We'll keep interacting. I want to get to a... A specific statement that was made, and then let's expand on the hypocrisy issue and public prayer, because I know that's an important one to you, Kurt. I noticed after my article was posted, even though I had gone through it carefully, and then Professor Darrell Bach at Dallas Theological Seminary went through it carefully. I noticed after that that there were a couple of typos.

Someone pointed out that Michelle Bachman's name, I misspelled her first name and her last name. You know, too many letters, not enough letters. I read something, and it was so wrong. I thought it's got to be a typo, but I'll give you the opportunity to fix it here. You write in the article about 50 years after, and I see a 50 years later, in AD 381, the Romans held another meeting, this time in Constantinople.

There, a new agreement was reached. Jesus wasn't two. He was now three. Father's son. and Holy Ghost.

Constantinople never said that, spoke of God as triune, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, but never ever said that Jesus was now three. Jesus, quote, being two would be human and divine nature, but to say he was now three. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I mean, it's a long typo, but it looks like it's just a typo. I'm kind of baffled by that statement.

Well, what you had in terms of the Trinity. I mean, I think I think well, I don't know if we can agree on this, but I think we can agree that the Trinity is Yeah. not expressly uh uh within the Bible. I mean, you can go and you can find interpretations and so on. It's the kind of thing that you would think that something of that importance that Jesus or for his disciples would talk about, but it is not there.

So you don't take baptizing them, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, the words of Jesus being pretty strong?

Well, no, and neither do other Trinitarians. Because, I mean, for example, I don't mean any other Trinitarian. Uh what I mean is that There are Trinitarians who say, yeah, I mean, you're talking about Matthew. And there are Trinitarian So Take that very phrase. And I wish I could remember the name.

It's something I just read last night, actually. Um uh Who who was saying This could not, this cannot. Uh I think the word was possibly. This cannot possibly be interpreted. as meaning the Holy Spirit is a third being.

Now that is somebody who believes in the Trinity. That's fine. All right, but okay, let's just say this. Let's say that the doctrine of the Trinity is deduced from Scripture. As opposed to an explicit statement that says God eternally exists in three divine persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

If we say it like that, We agree. My point is that no one who believes in the Trinity and none in the church history in these councils said that Jesus was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. They would say that Jesus is the Son in human flesh.

So when you say that Constantinople said Jesus wasn't two, he was now three. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that's just not. That's wrong on every score. It has nothing to do with what the Bible even says about the Trinity. It's just no one believes that Constantinople didn't teach that.

It just looked like a mental typo, a mental lapse or something. Look, on radio yesterday, I said that H2O, that's the ingredients of oxygen.

Someone called in later and said, actually, water. I thought, oh, I said oxygen. But it's kind of something that egregious that you just put in there. And I was just struck. I wanted to give you the opportunity to say that's That's not correct.

Oh. I think I guess we're getting to some very, very specific points. Uh I think that we can agree, for instance. that the Council of Nicaea is 325. Uh uh Uh did not Um Adopt.

the concept of the Trinity. And it was Certainly a pro that was out. Did not. That that they did not adopt it? Did they do that?

But they but they dealt more in the concept of binary. No, no, no. Ah, okay. I see what you're getting wrong here. No, no, no, no.

There, okay. The question was the person of Jesus. I mean, the council of Nicaea said said very little about the Holy Spirit. No, but the Trinitarian formula is laid out with absolute clarity at Nicaea. I mean, are you sure you want to go down that road and deny that and say that the debate, the specific debate was whether Jesus was fully divine, the Son of God was fully divine, whether he was eternal or whether he was a created being, as Arius said.

And affirming his eternal being, there was a clear affirmation of Father, Son, and Spirit in God's triune nature. That's why the Nicene Creed became used in a standard way through the centuries. And then other issues would be taken up. And then there were later debates in other centuries that if Jesus is right now essentially fully man and fully God, then that puts another being in God.

So those were the nuances. But again, I don't want to make this into a pulling. I mean, we're really going down a very, very detailed theological area. I mean, I see it definitely affirmed. Wait, hold on hold on.

The doctrine Um did not reach Its current form. Until around the time of 385 under the leadership of Basil or eupharia. And what you what you have here Yeah. Um a circumstance of Well, what is it we're talking about when we talk about Trinity? And you can deal with Concepts of the Trinity and how they were viewed, and what did it mean, and so on and so forth, going all the way back to the anations of an Antioch.

But that doesn't mean that it is what we are talking about as You know, as the Trinity is understood in its current, in our current day, and that did not occur. until the end of the fourth century.

Okay, okay. is that there is further articulation given to the person of the Holy Spirit. at Constantinople. And that we'd agree with in terms of the articulation in the Creed. At the Confession of Nicaea, in Confession of Nicaea, just in front of me, we believe in one God, Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ.

And that's what's now expanded on because that's what the debate was. And then it closed, and in the Holy Ghost.

So it confesses one God, the Father Almighty, the Son of God, the Holy Ghost. That's what was discussed. That is clearly Trinitarian. And when you say, though, that Constantinople said that Jesus was father, son. And Holy Spirit.

No, Constantinople never said that, never believed it. It just more clearly defined God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But it never said. Jesus was father-son. and Holy Spirit.

So somehow something got in your thinking here that it's a very awkwardly written sentence. I think I think that Um We can, you know, the concept in there, and I don't even know what I originally wrote, so I don't want to have to go back and say, what is it? It's definitely a typo. It's either a typo or just a bad error. You know, just anyway.

No, but when we're dealing, I mean, what we're clearly talking about. is or at least what I am talking about. is the adoption of the concept of the Trinity in its current form. which did not happen. Until 350 years after the death of Christ.

And you don't actually hear about the concept of the Trinity. Until almost a hundred years after the death of Christ. And I as I talk about They talk about in the uh In the uh Uh In the article. That Uh are so many places. Where, and again, let me stop for one second.

I am not arguing that the Trinity is not true. What I am saying is that the Trinity is Not a simple, well, that's the answer, and the Bible says so. I understand. Take uh take uh uh uh a lot of people use Use 1 John. 1 John 5:7, which is in the King James, but it's not in the original Greek.

In fact, let me just finish that sentence for you. Yeah, we shouldn't be using that. To prove Trinity, because it's not in any ancient Greek manuscript in point of fact. But let me just say this. The church fathers after the New Testament teach substantially the same things in terms of the Father, terms of the Son, terms of the Holy Spirit.

These later church councils just put this together, codified things in the midst of debate. And by the way, when I teach this as a Jewish believer, I just use the scriptures. I don't even use the church councils. All right.

Amazingly, we've got one more segment only, and we'll talk about the issue of public prayer, hypocrisy, and is there a hierarchy of sins? Oh God of burning, cleansing flame, send the fire. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr.

Michael Brown. All right, we've taken the entire broadcast to talk with Newsweek veteran journalist Kurt Eichenwald about the Bible. We agree on a bunch of points. We disagree on a bunch of others. That's the purpose of the show, and that's the purpose of our written dialogue.

Kurt, we're going to get to your pet peeve and end the show with that. And when I say pet peeve, I don't mean that in a demeaning way. I know it's just a major issue to you and a lot of what fueled your article. But just to be clear about hierarchy of sins.

So in your view, let's say you have ISIS terrorists taking children and chopping them in two and beheading innocent people in cold blood. that in God's sight Is that any different than maybe if you overate a little bit today? Or maybe when you prayed, you weren't as focused and sincere as you should be. Are you saying that beheading innocent people and chopping children in two is on the same par in God's sight? as those other things I just mentioned.

There you're dealing with the Ten Commandments. Once you get Once you are within the Ten Commandments, I think I've said it this way. that you are clearly that's the hierarchy. Um And but once you get below that, Once you get into personal behaviors, That Do not Um uh do not entail The Ten Commandments. But again, I would say that if somebody's saying that they are a a Bible-believing Christian and they went and got a divorce.

Um That they have violated and remarried, that they have violated one of the Ten Commandments as prescribed by Jesus. All right, but you told me earlier, though, unless I misunderstood you, That let's say someone is living in adultery. They've left their wife. They're not even divorced. They're now living in adultery.

They show up at a church service, living in adultery with the person they're sleeping with. And people, the pastor and leaders, have sat down with that person and urged them, you need to repent, you need to turn away from the sin. And they refuse and they say, God's fine with this because Jesus set me free. And they want to take communion. I say that the word is very clear that they are.

Ought not to and cannot, and that we would be sinning and serving it to them. I thought you said earlier that we should still serve it because that's between them and God. I agree. I mean, I said, well, you're talking about murder versus. No, no, let's say adultery.

Adultery is one of the Ten Commandments.

Okay. Uh uh You know what? You've hit me on something I haven't thought of enough. Except. All right.

I do believe I do believe. That uh uh man has no place getting between Getting between an individual and God. And God, like I said, God doesn't need our help. And uh, so the person goes outside in cold blood, with everybody watching, they behead an innocent person and then come in and say, All right, I'd like communion. You're you're telling me we don't refuse them communion?

Different.

Well, I don't know of many Christians running around begetting people. But hey, it's all the same. I mean, you've made blankets. T t tell you what. Let's you think about that a little bit more.

But but ex i let let's talk about the issue of public prayer, the big prayer rallies. Let me go into let me go into one thing very quickly. Please. Because this is something you talked about, and this was a very important question and an event in my life. And I I really want your listeners to think about this.

There are many of them who say and will say that if you do not Believe in Jesus and the resurrection, that you are Doomed for hell. Doomed to hell.

Well, right now there is A 94-year-old woman living in rural China. She's illiterate, has never been out of her village, has never heard of Christianity, was born there. Was placed there by God. God knew she would never be exposed to this. And he did so for the purpose Of knowing that you would be tormented and tortured for all eternity.

Because she was too poor. to find out about Christianity. I don't accept that. And I don't believe that, and I don't believe there is such a God who would create such a scenario. And so, but that's one thing I want people To think about because it's an important thought.

It's one. That is, that is derived from empathy. And there's not a lot of empathy in those things. But let's jump to the public prayer issue. Yeah, and just 30 seconds.

Number one, there's often a lot of superficiality. You're right. We just say, well, that person goes to hell, and we don't even shed a tear, and we don't even think about it. That's repulsive to me. And in my world, the folks I work with, we go to those places, we go to those villages, people sacrifice their lives to tell people about Jesus.

But ultimately, God is that woman's judge, and God will judge her based on the light that she had or didn't have. But let's take a couple minutes because we're almost out of time. Back to you about public prayer. At least we'll start here. Maybe we'll discuss this another day, but go ahead.

Let me go very quickly. In Matthew 6. Jesus talks about prayer. Um and it it it is It is a very clear statement. The thing that people stop Where is uh in Matthew 6, 5, where he says, Thou shalt not be as I know this.

Thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are, for they love to pray, standing in the synagogues. And on the street. That they may be seen by they may be seen as men. And people will say, well, people don't do it to be seen as men. Yeah.

Then completely dropped the next Six or seven verses. And Jesus says very clearly, But thou, when thou prayest, Enter into thy closet. And when thou hast shut the door, come. Praise thy father, which is in secret. and thy father would see us in secret.

shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not in vain repetitions as the heathens do, for they think they shall be heard for their much speaking. I don't think that there is a series of words. And then Jesus says. Pray with the Lord's Prayer.

That's it. I don't think there are a series of words in the Bible that are more clear. and they come out of the mouth of Jesus. And yet, we have people going to football stadiums, being led by others, by politicians, on Trinitrons, or people who are. who are attending mass Events where they're waving their arms, or even let's take something very simple.

People who are wearing their Sunday best could go to church. which, by the way, if they're a woman, is a violation of one Timothy. But you're not sure about 1 Timothy.

Well, tell you what, just saying, if you want to say that. I'm joking with you. But let me just jump in and say this, only because we're out of time. You know, as I mentioned in my response in Newsweek, that you have to look at the entire New Testament. Jesus prays in public on several occasions.

And then in addition to that, the apostles and the believers gather together in public prayer in Acts 1.14. And then in Acts 4, the end of the chapter, they all pray together. And then Paul exhorts us to, he even gives teaching about when we come together and pray.

So I believe that the great point is against hypocrisy. And let's agree here. Just because we're out of time, we can talk, but there'll be nobody listening. One question. One question.

So when Jesus says Pray in secret. He wasn't curious. Ah, he was. But tell you what, the answer to the question, of course he was. And the bulk of what we do, we get alone and we pray and we seek God.

But he wasn't saying it's wrong to ever pray publicly, but we shouldn't do it to be seen by men. A conversation to continue, Kurt, thank you for joining us. My bottom line today. Study the scriptures diligently, earnestly, and ask God to open your eyes.