Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by speaking truth through truth content. mounts of truth 1.gy heart 1. kay heart 2. seer 4. femt you for weeks, and the article is titled, Do Christians Have the Right to Self-Defense? Now, you can make comments in this thing, too, at the bottom. It's about almost 5,000 words long, and it's not intended to be that long. You can read the first three paragraphs and get the gist of everything. And I also put up, it's, excuse me, I need you on there. I put up some summary points, and, excuse me, the idea is I'm taking this very seriously because there are a lot of Christians who are being persecuted for their faith, killed, beaten up, et cetera.

What do you do? Do Christians have the right of self-defense? And I went through a lot of scripture. Long story short, yes, Christians have the right of self-defense, but not the obligation. And I go through varying points. What's really interesting is that we have the obligation to defend others. And at what level can we defend people?

I went through the Old Testament, talked about, or just listed some of the items of warfare, the techniques of warfare, and then what Jesus said, buy a sword, and how Jesus says to seek peace, and tried to balance all of it. So if you're interested in checking that out, please do. What's gonna happen is there are gonna be people, I know in Africa and several countries, who are gonna be printing this up and using it. And that's why I've taken so long to do this. That's why I've been slow at it. I've talked to different people about it, and I take it very seriously because this could be misused.

But this is what we have to deal with, some of the things that we gotta do. So there's that, and I have a debate tomorrow night on the Trinity versus oneness, and I'll be going through that. I'll put more information up on that link and everything else like that as well. All right, let's see, four open lines. All you gotta do is give me a call, 877-207-2276. Let's just get on the phone with Vicki from Richmond, Virginia.

Vicki, welcome, year on the year. Hello, hello, how are you? I clicked the button, the right one, and I don't hear anything.

So maybe there's an issue on my end, I don't know. So let's see, sometimes we have a little tech problem, so I'm asking the... Can you hear me? Yes I can, there you go. Now I'm Vicki.

Hello? Yes, I hear you now, sure. Okay, I'm sorry.

That's all right. My question was, I was looking for it, but I can't seem to find it right this second. Where King David is bringing the ark of God back into Jerusalem after Uzzah has touched it and they've put it up in the other guy's house for three months and they're bringing it back and he's sacrificing and he's wearing a linen ephod. Now I know he was wearing a, now is that the same ephod that the priest would wear?

My question is, well that's it, I always thought that the ephods were just for the priest. And I was wondering why David was wearing an ephod to bring the ark of God back. Do you have a verse? To Jerusalem. Do you have a particular verse?

Because I always like to look at things in context. Right. If you can, if you can, I think that's in 2 Samuel. 2 Samuel. Okay. Okay.

Well I'm searching. Oh here we go, it's in, well 1 Chronicles 15, 27 it says, David was clothed with a robe of fine linen with all the Levites who were carrying the ark and the singers and Shenaniah, the leader of the singing, of the singing, with the singers. David also wore an ephod of linen. It's a, I think it's also a cross-reference of 2 Samuel 6.14, dancing before the Lord all those might, wearing a linen ephod. So it's 2 Samuel 6.14 and 1 Corinthians 15. Right, that's the verse I was just interested in.

Okay. You know, I don't know, off the top of my head, I'm not sure what's going on there. Why would David be wearing it? Well, it could be that he made a mistake.

In fact what I'm doing, I'm gonna scan through some commentaries on this and see. Just because, well, a lot of times people would do things that were wrong and they just recorded that they were doing something that was wrong, but it sometimes doesn't say that it was. Now I don't know the context. It's the men of Israel, 30,000, bring up the ark, and took hold of it, oxen upset it.

David was afraid of the Lord. Yeah, I didn't read the whole thing and say, you know, off the top of my head, I don't know. But it's a good question. Okay, okay.

So it's first. Well, I was just wondering. Yeah. Yeah, it was dancing before the Lord. Can I say, I think you know everything. Oh, no.

You've just misplaced that thought, that's all. Well, I've learned a lot. But there's lots of stuff I have to learn. In fact, you know, in my 60s now, and I wish I could make a deal with God to have another 100 years of just being able to study and teach. I've got so much to learn.

I know, me too, me too. It could be that what David was doing, though, is an act of homage to God, as I don't know of any requirement that says that only the priest can wear an ephod. I don't know if that's the case. And it says it's for the high priest. And ephod, I'm looking at some notes.

Let's see, priestly office. When I'm thinking about it, I can't remember their names, but when David, that priest that lived after Saul killed all of them there up in Shiloh, he went to David's camp, I think, and as I remember, he had a linen ephod in his hand. Maybe he gave that to David.

I mean, I don't know, I was just. Well, here's the thing, I'm looking around, I'm doing some research while we're talking, and it says in 1 Samuel 2.18, now Samuel was ministering before the Lord as a boy wearing a linen ephod. So Samuel was wearing one.

So it looks like, let's see, let's see. So yeah, it looks like others can wear it as well. It's made of offering for the people, made of gold and blue, purple, scarlet. Oh, look, it's interesting, joint of onyx. I don't know why I had gotten in my head that it was just for priests. It might be. Of course, Samuel was a priest and a prophet, and a prophet, I mean, and a judge.

Yes, and yeah. So anyway, I'm scanning through some stuff and some notes, but yeah, that's a good question. I don't have a good answer for you, which I did, but it looks like others could wear it, but I don't know if it's a requirement only for the priesthood. See, if it was commanded that they wear it, it doesn't mean that others can't.

So if it says only the priest shall wear it, then you'd have an issue. That would be the thing to look for. All right, that sounds good to me.

Yeah, I can research. Thank you so much. Well, you're welcome so much. Wish I had a better answer for you, though. Well, that was good. That's the best one I have heard. Well, okay, well, all right.

I know people are out there going, no, I've studied that, and then if you have, call up and then whoever studied it can let me know. Yeah, that'd be great. That would be great.

Absolutely. Okay, Matt, be blessed. You too. Thank you, my brother. Oh, you too. God bless. Bye-bye.

All right. All right, now we have four open lines. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. Let's get to Mark from Florida. Mark, welcome. You're on the air.

Hi, Matt. Got a question for you. You were speaking about Christians and self-defense, and would that apply to refusing to take the coronavirus vaccination, maybe in fear of the possible repercussions it might have in the future?

Wow, boy, I'm trying to keep this article short, but that's a good question. Could always update it and have sub-points and stuff. I've just recently decided that I'm not gonna get the vaccine, and I decided this weekend. I've already had COVID, and no problem. Been around people with COVID.

No sweat, no problem. Got antibodies and all of that. So I don't want to take it because I don't trust it. My research has led me to believe that it's dangerous, potentially dangerous. And I know that FDA just approved it.

I think they just approved it because of politics. That's my opinion. I don't trust the FDA anymore. I don't trust much of anybody. I agree.

Yeah, it's bad. I mean, when they say all kinds of stuff that turns out to not to be true, and then the CDC is contradicting itself and changing its stuff constantly. I've lost faith in them.

And Fauci, well, he's a joke. And of course, Biden and Harris, you can't trust them. And it's like, so who do we trust?

So I don't trust information on COVID now. And because of it, I'm going to seek to protect myself. But the article I release, do we have the right of physical self-defense, of violence?

And the answer is yes, we do. Under certain circumstances. Could the shot be deemed as something physically that we're defending ourself from? If they were to, like, for example, if they were to, okay, physical violence is forced upon you. Now, I could have physical violence when I go to martial arts, but it's not forced on me. I'm joining up and get thrown around, and that's fine. I love getting thrown. It's one of my favorite things in martial arts.

I don't know why, there it is. But at any rate, so if someone, I do, if someone were to hold me down and say, we're going to give you a shot right now, I'm going to fight them. I'm going to do what I can to stop them. And so, because I would consider a form of offense on me whoa, just, sorry, something just poked me on the, I just got poked. You okay? Yeah, the radio just got poked with something on my foot. Sorry about that. Well, you have the right to defend yourself. Yeah, I'm sitting here all of a sudden.

So I'm going to check it out. At any rate, okay, back on here. So I would defend myself that way physically.

I would use violence only in a level to stop the assault. And that's what I think is permissible. But what the government is now trying to do is control us, I believe, and we'll get back to the break. We'll talk more about that, okay?

Because there's a break. Okay. Hey folks, if you want to give me a call, all you got to do is dial 877-207-2276. Give me a call. I'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Hey everybody, welcome back. We have three open lines.

Give me a call, 877-207-2276. All right, Mark, you still there? Yes, sir. Yeah, I'm here.

Now, where were we? I kind of forgot. Well, you know, I actually, I'm actually a long time, I called a few times and I've gone through a situation at my work that I talked to you about in the past. Can I give you a quick rundown on that?

Sure. Just so I called earlier this year, my work had sent out a mandatory evaluation, actually it's evaluation of whether or not we would take the COVID-19 shot or if we had COVID. I refused to go ahead and do that altogether because I believe it was invasion of my medical privacy. And I caught a lot of heat for that for a little while. And about a month later, they went ahead and proceeded to do a kind of a bribery where you get a hundred dollars if you get the vaccine. And then weeks after that, they announced that we'll all remove the masks. We were still wearing the masks by the time to remove the masks if we reach 65% of the company's been vaccinated. And at that point I went ahead and said, you know, enough is enough. And I was the first guy to take my mask off. I just stopped wearing it at that point when they did that. And people followed suit along with that.

And it got to the point where the president of the company noticed that people were just basically flat out defying the mask rule and lists basically made it, I've sent out a letter to the company making it optional. Did I do something wrong as a Christian in any way by doing that kind of being rebellious? No, there's an article I've written on CARM called When Can We Resist Our Government? And when is it appropriate? And it's appropriate whenever they or any group requires something that's unbiblical. And so it's like if they were to require that you give, you know, 2% of your wages, they require that you voluntarily, they require you voluntarily sign up and give 2% to the pro-homosexual cause down the road. You know, you can say, no, I'm not doing that. They can't force you. And so you have a right, you have a right to follow your conscience.

And incidentally, it's against the law, for it's against federal law for anybody to require vaccine and employment. Okay, thank you. It is.

And I gotta find that. But at any rate, I don't believe you were acting inappropriately. You don't know if the vaccine is trustworthy. There are plenty of instances of damage being done by it. Plenty of instances where people are fine. But, you know, it wasn't FDA approved.

It just got approved, I think, today. And I don't know which one. Okay. There's one that doesn't mean anything to me now. It doesn't.

You know, it just doesn't mean anything to me personally. Plus, one of them I know alters your DNA slightly. And this is, to me, extremely close to the issue of self-defense.

What are they doing to my very DNA? Right. I don't want anybody to alter my DNA. And, you know, so it becomes an issue.

I don't believe that that is just being recalcitrant. So, you know. Well, Matt, I want to thank you, actually, for your show has actually given me the courage to do what I did that day, when I took off the mask going forward. Nobody wanted to take that step. They were a little fearful. And, you know, I was taking a big chance in doing that. And I just want to say to you and your listeners out there that sometimes we have to be courageous. And in these times, it looks like we do a little ways.

We're going to lose our country. But that's what I got to say. Yeah, and we have to be wise about it. And, yeah.

Yes, yeah, I agree. Yeah, I did it very respectfully and tactfully. And I want to say, too, that the Lord had his hand in it, too, because prior to all this, I gained a lot of favor in the eyes of the leadership there. And as far as work, yeah, as far as work performance, you know, dedication, being reliable there. You know, I'm one of their top employees. I'm a key player there. And, you know, when I do something like that, they pay attention.

They see a good, hard, honest working person that's never really caused any problem as a legitimate gripe. So that goes hand in hand with obeying and then being, you know, defiant when you have to. Yes. Yeah, and we need to be wise.

But God was involved in that. Yes, and I need to tell people, because, you know, people are going to be listening. And it's costly sometimes to stand on a principle. And I'm not just sitting here in the comfort of my home telling other people to do it.

I have absolutely done it myself. And it's cost me greatly. And I didn't know where the money was going to come in for feeding my family.

I didn't know where I was going to be staying. It was like that, because I lost employment over an issue that was an issue of ethics. And my wife, to her credit, stood by me and said, okay, we'll just trust God through it. And I'll tell you, I remember this, there came times when we had $15 that someone would give to us, because I was running car in early days, we had to decide what we're going to do with $15, how much for diapers, how much for gas, how much for food.

And it was like that. Oh yeah, yeah, no joke. And so, you know, I know what it means, and I've been through it, but sometimes it's what we have to do. We have to stand up.

I agree. Because if we don't, we're going to lose, we're going to continue to lose our country. We have people in government who cannot be trusted. And the leftist media, CNN, MSNBC, et cetera, you cannot trust them. And they are full of liars and people who've been agendized. They want agendas. They're socialists. I don't trust them.

I don't trust them. And so, in my opinion, a lot of the people in the government are guilty of treason. So. I agree with that. And who knows how long before I'm arrested for what I say.

This is where we are now in America. When I say this, I'm not trying to be melodramatic, but it's a reality. I mean, what I say in the radio here, you know, I say homosexuality is a sin. It's not an alternative lifestyle. It's wrong. Abortion is wrong. Socialism is wrong. I don't trust Pelosi. I don't trust Biden.

I don't believe that the election was fair. But am I free to say these things? And then PayPal is talking about penalizing people who supported Trump and, excuse me, are conservatives. And there are groups going around trying to penalize and punish people who don't hold to the leftist values. This is not America anymore. It's not a constitutional republic.

It's becoming totalitarian. Oh, yeah. I've had people come up to me and tell me you're killing people because you didn't take the vaccine. And obviously there's no logic to that since you can still catch it after getting the vaccination. So it's really bad. But if they say you're killing people, say, wait, you mean, you say I'm killing, you mean I'm performing the action that causes their death? Really? Do you drive a car?

Do you cough on people with whatever you've got? It'd be insanity of leftist thought. They don't have all their frontal lobes in their brain.

They don't. Get a break. All right, buddy. God bless, man. God bless you later.

All right. Hey, folks, give the call. Be right back. ["The Daily Show"] It's Matt Slick live. Taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. There we go. Hey, sorry about that.

So actually somebody, they hung up. But there was something that he was gonna talk about which I wanna bring up a little bit. And it's called the Nuremberg Code from 1947. And just look up the Nuremberg Code and you'll find it.

I'm gonna be reproducing it on the CARM website when I do my research, further research on COVID and stuff. This is some of the stuff that they came up with in response to the atrocities that the Germans did on the Jews and others in experimentation. And that they agreed that the certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical, and legal conceptions. Number one, the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent, should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice without the intervention of any element of force.

This is what the Nuremberg Code said. And when people then say, in order to go to school or go to a restaurant, you have to have the vaccine, that is an element of force. Number four, and it says the experiment should be conducted so as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury. And six says a degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

Number 10, during the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage if he has probable cause to believe in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful management required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death due to the experimental subject. Now this last one is important because there are cases about injuries coming from this vaccine. Now we have realized that different vaccines have different risk factors, we understand that. And we have to balance that out.

But I have some questions. Why is COVID suddenly the virus that shuts down economies all over the world? Why is it suddenly the one that does this? What happened to the flu season? The flu season was killing thousands and thousands every year. And yet all of a sudden, we don't hear about the flu season anymore. Why is that?

It's a question I have. Why are people demanding that children wear masks when the evidence says they don't need to? What's going on?

Why are these controls in there? And I went to a doctor's today, doctor's office, and they required that I wear a mask. And I just wanted to walk out, but I didn't. They have the right to, in their private business, but I just thought it was stupid.

I just thought it was stupid. And why do you have to wear a mask? And because the coronavirus is very, very small and it passes through the fibers that are woven together in these cloth masks, for example, they pass through them. And I read some research that are only 3% effective at stopping anything, 3%.

And yet, wear them. And it's, we're not being led by real science in this. There's an agenda going on behind this. And so I'm really concerned. And, but you know, God works all things after the Council of Israel, Ephesians 1-11, and he causes all things to work together for God, for those who love him, Romans 8-28. You know, I choose, and I hope you do too, choose to trust in the Lord through all of this.

We need to be educated, we need to be informed, and we need to move forward according to the faith that we have in him. Let's get to Travis from Greensboro, North Carolina. Travis, welcome. You're on the air. I'm staying there all year, but you're like, we're on the way, I swear! Travis, are you there?

Woo, how are you? Maybe, we'll have to go back to Travis here a little bit. All right, let's go to Robert from Utah. Hey Robert, welcome, you're on the air.

We having a problem on our phones? Let's see, Robert from Utah, are you there, Robert? Hello. I'm here. Okay, there you go. All right, welcome, you are on the air.

How are you, man? Okay, well, I have a question for you. I asked it about two weeks ago, but you had to take it after I hung up because you were up against a heartbreak.

But I asked it the wrong way, and I apologize. The real question I wanted to ask was, where do we go, not where do we go, rather, when do we go be with the Lord? Because there are a lot of people that seem to think, and religions, Matt, that feel like there's a holding place and a time after we die, but if that were true, then why did the Lord say to the thief on the cross, today you will be with me in paradise.

He didn't say tomorrow or later. And then also, Paul the apostle said that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. So can you speak to that after we die, do we go immediately to be with the Lord, those that are saved?

Yes, that's it. You already quoted the verses that are relative to it. Last one you quoted was 2 Corinthians 5.8, we are of good courage, I say, prefer to be absent from the body and to be home with the Lord. And so there's a condition of existence apart from the body where we can be with Christ. So we who are Christians have passed out of condemnation, Romans 8.1, so therefore, if we pass out of condemnation because we died with Christ, Romans 6.6, then we can go be with him and will be with him, 2 Corinthians 5.8 says that. So we immediately die, when we immediately die, we go be with the Lord.

And those who are not Christians go to a bad place. There is no purgatory, as Catholics say, or any sort of orthodoxy imply. There is no, what's the other, purgatory is a limbo. There's no limbo, there's no soul sleep where we don't exist or something like that. We have consciousness, we go be with the Lord right after we die.

Okay. That's what I believe too, Matt, according to the scriptures, but I've heard it from several people, and I'm like, where are they getting this from? Because it isn't from the scriptures. Yeah, well, if you go to my section on Annihilationism, you'll see that there are 182 articles I've written on Annihilationism.

It just became a huge project. And a lot of people are arguing that there are different conditions of the afterlife. Non-existence, conscious existence, unconscious existence, a kind of a non-conscious, almost non-existence.

There's some weird combinations. Some say we don't exist and we're recreated. And so different cults and false religious systems will misuse the scriptures in this. And that's where they're getting it. So the issue is, what does the scripture say?

But if you really want to study it more, I've written a lot of articles on this. And if we don't go be with the Lord and there's a holding place, show it to us in scripture. Nothing in scripture says there's a holding place. Now, some people might want to go to Luke 16, 19 to 31, where Lazarus and the rich man. But that was before the crucifixion. And I get into the change of the covenant. And once Christ was redeemed, he could take captive a host of captives.

Romans, excuse me, Ephesians 4, 11 through 12 talks about this or eight through 12, actually. And so there's answers, there's discussion. It gets involved.

But if you want to know more, you can go to my website and read up on it. But it's just up to you. So, sounds like a plan. Thanks, Matt. Okay, man. All right, buddy, God bless. Okay.

God bless you, brother. Bye-bye. All right. All right, look at the Travis from Greensboro, North Carolina. Travis, are you there?

Yes, I'm here, Matt. All right. All right, man.

What do you got, buddy? A lady called in a few people ago. A few people ago, she called in, she was talking about the Ephod. Yeah. Uh-huh. Well, I didn't have an answer for her on that because that's where I have to look at my notes at home when I'm not home.

Okay. But in the end of her conversation, she said something about Samuel being a priest and a prophet, and it's to my understanding that he was a judge and a religious leader, never a priest or prophet. Yeah, I was wondering about that, too. Didn't hear him being called a priest and I started thinking about it afterwards. So, something to research again.

Yeah, well, I hope she's listening to it because according to my studies, he was never a priest, just a judge and a religious leader because he grew up in the temple with Eli, so he knew all the ways of the priest, but he was never ordained. Yeah, that makes sense. Hey, we've got a break. You wanna hold on, buddy, or are you done?

Because we got a break. No, I'm good, thank you, man. All right, man, God bless. Hey, folks, we have five open lines, wide open. Why don't you give me a call? 877-207-2276.

We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Let's get him a poach here with Colton from Idaho.

Colton, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt, how's it going?

It's going, man. What do you got, buddy? Are you there? Did I lose you? Hello? I'm not hearing you. Hello?

Let's try this again. Colton, are you there? Yeah, can you hear me? Now I can hear you, okay.

So what's up, big man? Awesome. All right, well, I just got a question about Jude verse five.

Okay. Some manuscripts say Lord, and then earlier manuscripts say Jesus. I know the ESV says Jesus, and the NIV says Lord. When I'm witnessing to Mormons, should I be using, I know I should be using the same thing, something that they're familiar with, but could I use that to prove that Jesus was Jesus was around before the Incarnation? Well, what I would do with Mormons is stick with the King James and avoid areas of textual variance like this, because I can just go down a rabbit trail, and they can use it to say that the Bible's not trustworthy, that it's corrupted. Well, the King James says this, but you wanna go with that, why that, and then you're stuck.

I see. And so then at that point, what I just bring up, my 3913 changes to the Book of Mormon, the textual apparatus of the New Testament, and I compare them, I show stuff, but that's another level of stuff. So if you wanna show that Jesus is God, they're gonna agree that he's God. The best thing you can do to learn Mormonism is learn their definitions. And so you always have to know their definitions, because when you say Trinity, and you say, hey, do you agree with the Trinity?

They'll say yes. But they believe that Trinity is three separate gods. Three gods. Right. And you believe in salvation by grace? They'll say yeah, and they mean universal resurrection. So you see, you have to know their terms, and when I talk to Mormons, I speak in terms of definitions. So I don't use the terms so much unless I say, do you affirm the doctrine of the Trinity that there's only one God, and all, et cetera?

And that's what I'll do with them. Right, define terms. Right, yeah. You always have to define terms. Yep.

A lot of people don't wanna do that. Awesome, Matt. Well, I appreciate your time, and I'm gonna let you go, man. I appreciate it. Okay, buddy, God bless, man. All right. All right, God bless, man.

Okay. All right, let's get to Matt from North Carolina. Matt, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt. Hey, Dave. I have a question for you. In Daniel, chapter 12, verse 11 and 12, it says, from the time that the day the sacrifice shall be taken away, an abomination that maketh this set up, there shall be 1,290 days.

And then the verse says, blessed is that weighteth, and cometh to the 1,335 days. What's the difference between those two, I mean, what? 45. Yeah. Sorry, I can't resist. I know. Could you tell me the differences between those two verses and what they're talking about? Okay. The difference is there has something, it has to do with the deaths of Antiochus, and there's a 45-day period of mourning or something to do with that. Let's see, so, let's see, what is this? I'm looking for some notes here, and that's another good question people are asking.

This is coming up more at SDA, are starting to manifest more, and so I'm having to start studying these things again. But that's what I understand it to be. But you know what, it's not ringing right about the Antiochus and stuff. So, blessed are the ones who make it to the 1,335, it's a 45-day period, which is eight times five.

I would like to look at numbers to see if there's any relationship between them. I don't know. But as for you, go the other way to the end, it will be a blotted portion of the end of the age. That's really interesting. I'm not exactly sure.

I have some ideas, but without really studying it in depth, there are people who, however, the Millerites and others, who will, say from the years like 652 or the year, whatever it might have been, 445 BC, 652 BC and stuff, and they'll add these days, they'll call these days years, and then they'll say, say it happened, 1800's this, or 1844, 1867, and then what they do is they really try and justify their particular theological perspective by saying it happened, you know, October 22nd of 1844, Jesus moved into the second phase of his atoning work and things like that. Hold up. Boy, I had a sudden cough. So, that's all I understand about that so far, and you know what? People are starting to ask more about it, so I'm gonna have to refresh my memory on these things.

So that's what I'll just have to do. Daniel 12, that is interesting. The last part, why would there be a 45-day difference? He who waits and attains to the blessed. Yeah, there's gonna be a problem during that period of time, and the temple, et cetera, profanity, anti-Christ.

So I think it might have to do with surviving that period of danger during that period of time when a certain thing will occur. And the Jews, yeah, that's right. Here's a note. It says, till the rest, yeah, the year 145 BC, till the restoration of the worship by Judas Macbius on the 25th day of the ninth month of 140 BC, according to the Seleucid era, occupies 1290 days and 45 days more elapsed before Antiochus' death in the month of Shabbat in 448. So, 3530 days, yeah, it's not telling me. So that's just another area of study in these details.

So, I'm not sure what that is. All right, may I find something to study in or something to be revealed for me in the future, you know? Yes, and there are, let me say this, there are several groups that will take these prophecies and the one that says 2,300 days and they convert them to years and they always wanna find out something that relates to them in particular, their group, their prophet, their prophetess, their organization, whatever it was, is the group that then brought in the truth that was told by or prophesied by that number. And I just get so tired of hearing these things because they really get in these convoluted kind of arguments and then they pick a date. It's almost as though they say, well, we're alive in the 1800s, so what's gonna happen around our time? So they look for numbers in the Bible and as they go backwards in time, they say, well, what is this date? And then they use archeological information to justify certain things in past dates and then use that as a marker by which they can then predict for the future that, hey, at their time, their group started or they have the truth, et cetera. And there's different dates that they ground, that are grounded archeologically in that time from back then, like March 14th, 445 BC, is when Artaxerxes issued the command to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.

Well, when you go to Daniel 9, for example, and you add up the days that it talks about, 170,880 days, that's when Jesus came in and walking into, or riding the colt into Jerusalem. Well, okay, the presentation. So why that date? Some people say, no, use a date that was earlier.

Some say use a date that was later. And so I've discovered over the years, reading through some of these things, that particular groups, because they have an agenda, will find out what value they want they want to assign to a previous archeological date that they use as a launching point to get to the future that they want to have, according to their theology. And it gets complicated when they do this kind of stuff. Because a lot of them are just experts in this one particular field, and they'll study that infinitum.

And they'll say, from this day, often doesn't take very long to destroy their arguments. But at any rate, you see what I'm saying? There's just a lot there, just a lot. Right, right, yeah, I gotcha.

There is. And I've been researching, actually, SDA stuff and these numbers recently. But I've got a debate tomorrow night, and I'm also researching COVID, and so I'm having issues. In fact, Ellen G. White talked about the 2,300 days, and it didn't 1844, it just, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, I wish they would stop, you know? I just wish you would stop doing this kind of stuff. Yeah. Oh, well, here it is. All right, buddy? All right. All right, man. Bye. Okay, God bless. Hey, folks, we have no one waiting. If you want to give me a call, we have a couple, three, four minutes. And let me just remind you that I released an article on what level of violence can Christians use to defend themselves.

And it's released on CARM, I released it over the weekend. If there's feedback that you have, please leave feedback. We would like to know. It's a very serious topic. You don't find any place in the New Testament where any Christians use violence to defend themselves.

It's not recorded. Generally, with the early church, the same kind of a thing, they just took it. They just would just lay down and die.

And I'm not knocking them. Do we have the right of self-defense? One of the analogies I use is if someone comes into my home and attacks my wife, for example, I will use whatever level of force, physical force is necessary to stop the threat. I don't want to go excessive, but I want to stop the threat.

I think this principle is a good principle. If I have a friend in my house and someone comes in and threatens my friend, the same thing applies. What about outside the house? What about imminent threats? What about threats coming to your home?

And you know they're there to do that, to harm you. What do you do then? What do you do if you are in Afghanistan and the Taliban is looking for Bible apps on your phone? Should you delete the app so that they can't, let's say they're gonna kill you for that. Should you delete the app? What do you do?

Is it appropriate to do that? Is it denying Christ to do that? There's all kinds of questions and all kinds of things that are difficult to answer and difficult to come up with exact right answers to do all kinds of stuff. I don't have all those answers. So in the article, what I tried to do is develop a set of principles. We have the right of self-defense, but not the right of vengeance. And the violence, if necessary, if chosen, should only be to the level to stop violence because we want to be at peace with as many as we can.

It doesn't mean we have the obligation to use violence in self-defense, but we have that right. Anyway, may the Lord bless you by his grace. We'll be back on here tomorrow and we'll talk to you then. Have a great evening, folks. Talk to you later. Another program powered by the Truth Network.