Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network.

And coincidentally, you're listening to Slick Live. Please jump on the phone and let's get to Kelly from South Carolina. Kelly, welcome.

You're on the air. Thank you. And my question for you is do you believe that there's any evidence in the Bible that Adam and Eve repented? And also, do you think that we should read the Apocrypha about that sort of thing if it's not inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Okay, good. So did they repent? We would assume that they did. And the reason we would assume is because you really can't be saved without repentance.

Not that repentance brings you salvation, but it's concomitant with the issue of regeneration and God's saving work upon us. Now Adam and Eve were covered with animal skins. The implication there is that they were, that it was a pre-incarnate Christ who did this, covered them with animal skins, the blood being shed, hence they were covered. And so we can just generically kind of say, well, it does seem like they repent. They did themselves. They knew they did wrong. And then, you know, they accepted the covering of God for them. So I'm sure they, I would say most probably, yeah, of course they would have repented. Okay, I forgot your other question was.

What was the other question though? And as I was researching that on your website, I came across the books of Adam and Eve and it says translation from the Apocrypha and it talks about them being repentant and what they did. Would you think that we should be reading and taking those verses to heart or do you think we should avoid the Apocrypha?

Depends. See, I'll read the Apocrypha in order to see what it says so I can debate about it, teach about it. I'll read the Quran for the same reason or the Book of Mormon for the same reason. Not that they're inspired, but because we had to be informed.

So if that's your issue, then fine. You don't read them if you think they're inspired. They are not inspired. They're not in the same level of scripture. So I don't have any problem with people reading apocryphal material if they realized it's just apocryphal material. Don't assume it's automatically correct because the apocryphal documents have problems in them and there's historical problems, doctrinal problems, and some very serious issues and the church and the Jews never considered them to be inspired. So we do have, however, for example, the Book of Enoch is quoted in the book of Jude. It doesn't mean the Book of Enoch is inspired. It means that when Jude, who was inspired, quoted it, the quote was inspired, not that the whole Book of Enoch is inspired. And there's like over 20 books in the Old Testament and the New Testament that are referenced that are not inspired.

The Book of the Wars, for example, is one and it was a book that the Jews had and so one of the writers, I forgot which, looked at it and then quoted it. Okay, this is it. And so it's accurate.

So it's not inspired, but when it's quoted, the quote and included in the inspired documents then becomes inerrant because it's accurate historically. Okay? Wonderful. I appreciate you helping me think that through.

Yes, sir. And thank you for all the fantastic information on your website. It's a wonderful resource. Well, praise God. You know, I just give thanks to God who can use an ex-occultist slime duck with Asperger's to be able to produce something that is useful to people, actually by his grace. So praise God. Thank you. Wow. Praise the Lord.

Yes, sir. Thank you so much for your time. You're welcome so much. Well, God bless, Kelly. Hope you have a good weekend. God bless to you. You too. Bye-bye. Bye. All right. Now, let's get to, I think it's, I'm not sure, I can't see the whole letters.

Bojo from Louisiana. Welcome. You're on here. Yes, it is me in Louisiana, and I don't want to talk about flying saucers or politics, if that's okay. Whatever you want to talk about. It's okay.

Yeah, well, your programs the last couple of days I have been, you know, listening to, I just didn't call in. But I had questions. I had questions. I questioned before was the word Christ and Messiah. I believe you told me that those were relatively same words but in two different languages.

Was that right? Messiah, it comes from the Hebrew messiah, and it's translated into the Greek Christos. That's all. Christ. And Messiah comes from where? The word Messiah. It's just an Old Testament word. And messiah. So I'm looking to see if I can find a reference that actually has it.

Let me see if I can just do a search. Yeah, find me one in the Old Testament where it's okay. It's Daniel 9.25, so that you are to know and discern that from the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem and tell the messiah, the prince, there will be seven weeks and 62 weeks. And incidentally, the decree to rebuild Jerusalem happened on March 14th, 445 BC. And from that decree, the number of weeks that are designated, seven weeks and 62 weeks, that's when he'll come in. That's 173,880 days, and that's when Jesus came in on a donkey into Jerusalem. That's just trivia. So there's one of the terms of messiah in Daniel 9.25 and 9.26, and after 62 weeks the messiah will be cut off.

And there's another one in Matthew 1.1. Okay, interesting. Oh, that's interesting. Let's see.

Let's take a look at this. You're looking in Matthew? Yes, Matthew 1.1.

Oh yeah, there it is. So that's interesting, because in the NASB, I didn't notice this before, the NASB translates the Greek word Christos into the English messiah. So now look in other Bibles. The ESV says Jesus Christ and King James Christ, looking for any others. Only the NASB, interesting, does it as messiah. And I believe the reason it does this is because it's referring to the Old Testament. Jesus is the messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

And so since Matthew is heavily Jewish, he's a Jew, that would make sense why they would put that term into the Hebrew equivalent, messiah. Interesting. You know, what's interesting is I started reading the Bible 40 years ago, and I started reading. Did you ever finish? Oh yeah, I finished it.

Okay, just checking. I pretty well finished it, and I re-done. I mean, once you get on to Bible, you don't ever get finished, Matt. You got that right. Well, it's just like right now. I just learned something new, you know, and I'm always learning.

And so you are right. You can't just read the Bible once I'm done. It doesn't work like that. You can't even read it 25 times, I don't think. How about 27? Would 27 work?

No problem, not either. What do you think? Well, maybe 27 to the 27th power might give us a beginning to fathom its depths. But I think we're going to need to go forward now. Yeah, if 7 times 70 takes, you know, forgiving, you're probably right. But in Acts, Jesus talks about, in Acts chapter 1, that they ask him specifically about the restoring of the kingdom to Israel. And that's where Jesus tells them that it's not – in no other words or less, he said it's not fixing to happen right now. But you will receive the promise that you have heard from me that the Father has given to wait in Jerusalem for the Spirit to be poured out, right?

That's right. And I believe when Jesus returns, according to the men in white, he said he's going to come back down on that same mountain. And when he – at least I – is that the way you see it, that Jesus will return to that same mountain? Yeah, he's going to touch his foot down on the Mount of Olives as the prophecy goes.

It'll be an earthquake. And he's returning in the clouds the same way he ascended into heaven. According to Acts 1, 9-11, it will not be in the – it was not in the armies of Jerusalem, as the preterists say.

At any rate, that's another topic. All right, so Messiah in Christ is just Hebrew and Greek equivalents, Mashiach and Christos, Messiah in Christ. But we're settled that those that are anointed by God do receive revelation from God, is that correct?

No, I wouldn't say that. If they're anointed from God – you know, for example, I – and I'm going to be very careful how I say this. I don't want to boast, hey, I'm anointed. But I believe that I have some sort of anointing that's from the Lord because of what I do. And I say that with humility. I don't say it in a boasting way.

I don't deserve anything. But I remember very clearly something happening when all of a sudden I changed and I had an insatiable desire to study. And it was from the Lord. And this insatiable desire to study went on for several years, and where I would read the Bible four to six hours a day.

I'd go to Bible studies six nights a week. And I could not stop studying. I remember being at a job where I was a mechanical draftsman, and I had a commentary of the Bible open. And I would read a paragraph and then continue to work while I'm thinking the paragraph while I'm doing my mechanics drawing.

And could not stop. And then I have the mind for logic and being able to remember patterns because I'm autistic. And so I believe that this is all God's work, and in that generic sense it's an anointing, it's a calling, it's a commissioning for that kind of a thing. And I believe different people have that. I don't get revelation knowledge. I don't know things. I look at what the Bible says, and God illumines it to me. And that's it. So I hope that I'm correct when I believe I read stuff. And I'm sure I'm not in many areas. I just don't know what they are yet.

None of us know what they are, the things that we don't know. But the question, I guess, let me ask this question today. Are there apostles today?

No. Not in the New Testament sense, because in 1 Corinthians 9.1 Paul says, Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen the risen Lord? Now, there are seven kinds of apostles in the Bible, and Jesus is even called an apostle. But there's Barnabas, who's an apostle, but he didn't do any miracles or write scripture. And then there's apostolo means to send, so you can have an apostle who's sent. There's false apostles. Then there's the apostles who were the twelve. So are there apostles today?

We'd be very careful how we answer that question. Like Paul, Peter? No, absolutely not. In the New Apostolic Reformation, where they say there's apostles today, they tend to have authority and be able to declare what God says and wants to be true and all this stuff. That's a load of crud, all right?

It doesn't happen like that, okay? Are there prophets? Same thing.

Well, in the New Testament sense out of 1 Corinthians 14, if they utter prophecy, it could be generically said there are prophets, but not in the Old Testament sense as an office. It was done Luke 16, 16. And there you go. We've got to go, buddy.

There's a break. Thanks for calling. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages, one open line.

Give me a call. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. Okay, everyone, welcome back to the show. Let's get on the air with Rudolph from Raleigh, North Carolina. Rudolph, welcome.

You're on the air. Yes, sir. Is emotional adultery grounds for divorce? Well, it depends what emotional adultery is and if that's even possible. I have to define it. Okay, can you define it? I guess it's emotional if you were cheating on your wife with your feelings with someone else.

Maybe that's... Okay, so how about this situation then? A man is emotionally drawn to another woman besides his wife, and he starts to fantasize about another woman as being a better match for himself than his present wife, et cetera, et cetera, this kind of a thing. He starts thinking other areas that he shouldn't be thinking. That would be a form of emotional and intellectual adultery in that sense, but it's not actual adultery.

And in such a case, such a man or woman, such a man would need counseling, and the elders of the church should be involved, and he, as a Christian, should recognize his situation that comes with repentance. And it's always doable, and it's always workable. I know that it is because I've counseled people, American Catholic, who've had that exact issue, and we've solved it, and it's all doable. Okay, so, all right. Okay, okay, all right. Well, thank you. God bless you, and have a good weekend. You too, man. God bless Rudolph.

All right, watch out for those reindeer. All right, two open lines if you want to give me a call, 8772072276. Let's go to Dave from Kansas City. Dave, welcome. You're on the air. Thank you, Matt. Thank you, Matt.

I'm a little faster at our search here. I admonished the people in our congregation to read through James every day for 30 days. And I thought that was awesome. And I read through it for two weeks in different versions, because I have 50 different versions that I've read through. And I read through the King James, and it kind of got to James 4-5, and it stuck out different than it did in other versions. And then I went to my study Bibles, and I realized that MacArthur and Ryrie and everybody have different opinions on James 4-5, whether it's the spirit James 4-5 said, the spirit that envies, whether it's the holy spirit that envies for, you know, God is a jealous God, you know, envies for our sanctification, or the human spirit that envies after the things of the world. And there's various opinions on this.

That's the top one. This is one of the reasons I suggest, another reason I suggest, that people not use the King James for serious study. But on the other hand, you know, something like this could cause you to do a serious study when you go, what? So, you know, I can work either way.

It's working a couple of ways. All right. So, do you think, this is the King James, do ye think that the Scripture saith in vain, the spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? See, we don't talk like that. That's why.

Yeah, don't use it. We don't talk like that. But that's okay. And so, when I look at this, that the spirit dwelleth, causes to dwell by location, tikatokisten, katakidzo. And in us, wow, okay, epipathay, let's see. And that word contracted to yearn, desire earnestly, that the spirit who dwells in us earnestly desires, and then thronos, which is hard to pronounce. It's a p-h-t-h sound, thonon, p-h-t-h-o-n-o-n in Greek, thonos. So, that's jealousy, righteousness, envy jealousy, pain felt in malignity, conceived at the site of excellency or happiness.

Interesting. So, I'm just looking at lexicon definitions. So, the spirit dwells in us is lusting to envy. The word envy is the problem. Well, lusteth, both of them really are.

Yeah, it is all a problem. Yeah, well, you know, the King James, you know, it was only in 1611, that 1611 language and context. And then there was a later update of it, and it still is anachronous. Anachronous means out of time, and that it's a misplaced time. Like you look at a movie of Alexander the Great, and one of the actors is wearing a wristwatch.

That wristwatch would be anachronous from kronos time. So, it's a bit of anachronistic definition or meaning of the word. That's why I would just go to more modern translations, which I think nail it perfectly. NASB says, he jealously desires a spirit to dwell in us. And ESV, he yearns jealousy over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us. The spirit dwells, that's the King James. The New King James says, the spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously.

The RSV. Yeah, it is. It is. Well, it's interesting, in the MacArthur study Bible, he uses the New King James, and he has the spirit, which is in capital S, okay? But MacArthur's notes say that that's the dead human spirit that left us after the world.

Let's see. He jealously desires the spirit, and this in the NASB is capitalized, the spirit which he has made to dwell in us. That's what the New American Standard says. And so, the ESV, he yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us.

Which is not capitalized, yes. Right. And then, let's see, RSV over the spirit which he has made to dwell in us. I can see why the human spirit is what they're getting at. And the spirit which he caused to dwell in us.

So, you're right, it is a very interesting verse. The spirit that he caused to dwell in us, it could be that the Holy Spirit is caused to dwell in us, but it could also be that the human spirit is caused to dwell in us. Exactly.

Right. The spirit which he has made, I like the NASB because I'm partial to it, and let's see, the temple of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 6, 19, 2 Corinthians 6, 16, the temple of idols, temple of God, I will dwell in him, okay. So, he jealously desires the spirit which he has made to dwell in us. To dwell is the infinitive. And this is aorist active indicative, it's not the infinitive. So, aorist, that he has made to dwell as a toughie. You know what, I'm not sure to do it.

Yeah, I know, that's just a great thing, that's what I'm excited about, because my friend and I were, he was talking that the visiting text is what makes it the Holy Spirit, but the older text makes it, in context, a human spirit. So, he was my friend that knows Greek much better than I do, said that. So, but we're really wrestling with that, so I thought I'd get your opinion, and we'll just wrestle with it and see. You wrestle. That's the exciting thing about learning to wrestle. You wrestle, and call me back and tell me what you found, okay.

We'll see who wrestles what in the submission. Okay, buddy, we got to go. All right, that's a very interesting verse.

All right, may the Lord bless you. Okay, hey, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Hey, everybody, welcome back to the show. I'm glad you're listening. Let's get on the line. Boy, I've been waiting a long time.

Antoinette from Charlotte, what a nice name. So, are you there? Hello? I did hit the right button. I'm here. Okay, there you go. I'm here. All right.

Okay. My question is, what about all the Halloween celebrating in the churches? Well, what churches generally do, I've seen around here in Idaho, is do trunk or treat.

And a bunch of cars will get into a parking lot of a church and do that kind of thing up in the trunks, and the kids go do that. I just said to my wife a couple of nights ago, I am so looking forward to Halloween because I just love the cute little kids in their outfits. And it's a delight. So, I have no problem with that. Now, it's from the Day Hallows, All Saints Day or All Hallows Day, which the next day, of course, is November 1st. And it was a celebration in paganism. Now, the thing is, are we allowed to celebrate the same day and even in the same kind of a thing that they did? Because people would put on masks, they would do different things, and it was ultimately in order to trick demonic forces so they wouldn't recognize who they were and that they would go door to door or they would travel. So it evolved into what we call Halloween. Oh, okay, I'm sorry, we can't do that now.

Why? Because that's what they did hundreds of years ago, so we're guilty if we do the same thing. No, we're not. Christians don't believe it's a demonic force behind a mask.

When a little four-year-old pony girl walks up and she's got a cute little outfit, she's got a little bag or something up, it's just cute. So we're free to celebrate it, but we're not free to do that if it's going to stumble others. We can't use our freedom as a reason for stumbling anybody else. But we're free, and I don't have any problem with people personally celebrating Halloween and having fun and Christmas gifts and Thanksgiving and celebrating a birthday. It's not idolatrous. And we're not worshiping anything pagan. Just because of pagan origin doesn't mean it's pagan now. It's like the Arabs invented the zero. The Arabs are pagans. Well, we can't use the zero now, can we? Or Saturday comes from Saturn, the god Saturnalia. Well, not Saturnalia, but Saturn was a god. Well, we can't celebrate and use the word Saturday now. This is how this gets ridiculous. So we just have to be careful, be wise, go have fun, just don't celebrate anything demonic, and just go have fun, you know?

It's fun. Okay? Okay, thank you very much. Okay, hope that helps. But, boy, I am so looking forward to little kids at the door.

That is awesome. Okay. All right, anything else? Okay, I guess not. All right, let's get on the air with Ryan from Pennsylvania. Ryan, you've been waiting a long time. Sorry about that. What do you got, man?

Thank you for inviting me to call back. And I have a question about two passages. One is Romans 5, 15 through 21, But the free gift is not like the offense, For if by one man's offense many died, Much more the grace of God, And the gift is by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, is bound to many. And the gift is not like that which came through one who sinned, For the judgment which came one offense resulted in condemnation, But the free gift which came from many offenses Resulted in justification. For if by one man's offense death reigned through one, Much more will those receive abundance of grace, And the gift of righteousness will reign In life through the one Jesus Christ. Therefore, as through one man's offense, Judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, Even so, through one man's righteous act, The free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as the one man's disobedience many were made sinner, So also one man's obedience, Many will be made righteous. And this is the verse I want to center in on. Moreover, the law entered that the offense might abound, But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more.

So that as sin reigned in death, Even though grace might reign through righteousness, Through eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord. Then the second passage is Hebrews 5, 1 and 2. For every high priest taken from among men is ordained For men and things pertaining to God, That he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sin. In verse 2. Who can have compassion upon the ignorant, And them that are out of the way.

For that he himself also was compassed with infirmity. And I listened to you yesterday make the conjecture, You said if babies die in infancy, Go to hell, then they deserve it. It seems to me that when Roman 5, 20 says, Where sin has abounded, grace has abounded even more. And when it says that he will have compassion upon the ignorant, And them that are out of the way. We can certainly say that the compassion of Christ, The grace of Christ, Will be extended to infants who die in infancy.

And certainly they would be redeemed. And that to conjecture that they would be sent to hell because they deserve it, Is really, really against the idea that God is a God of love. Well, no it's not. But I didn't say that. I said if they go to hell, it's because they deserve it. I didn't say anything. I said you conjectured it.

I said you conjectured it. Okay. So if they do, if it's the case that they do, Is it not also true that if they did, It's because it was proper and right upon them, If that's the case, right?

No, it's a violation of grace abounding for the sin. No, no, no. You know what the difference between a sound and valid argument is? An argument has to be valid and also sound. Yes, I do.

Okay. So we're talking about syllogistic premises here. So if it's the case that, premise one, If it's the case that all people are sinners, And we know from, and you quoted it, In Romans 5, 19, by the defense of the one, That many were made sinners. That many were made is the aorist passive indicative. And it means that everybody in Adam, 1 Corinthians 15, 22, in Adam all die.

He's the federal head. So therefore, all people are made sinners by Adam's sin. Babies are people, therefore babies are sinners.

It's valid. And it's sound because it's biblically based. So based on this, If I say that any babies go to hell, It's because they deserve it because they're sinners. I didn't say that they all do. In fact, I did say to the guy, I believe the babies, when they die, they go to heaven.

Okay. But how is that an expression of grace abounding more than sin? And how is that an expression of compassion upon the ignorant and them that are out of the way? Well, you've got to be careful here because what he's talking about in Hebrews chapter 5 is about a high priest. And Jesus, who's a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, which is why he's baptized, another topic. And so he's able to offer the gifts and sacrifices for sins.

He's the one who did this. And deal gently with the ignorant and misguided. He's talking about people who are aware. Not like the infants.

Ignorant and misguided. Because, hold on. Hold on a sec. Hold on a sec. Hold on. Hold on.

Hold on. The ignorant and misguided falls under the Granville Sharp Rule. It's where a definite article appears and is separated by the conjunction chi where two adjectives are there. So this dealing with the same individual or group. Dealing with the ignorant, not the ignorant people and other misguided people, but the people who are both ignorant and misguided.

The Granville Sharp Rule applies here. So that's what he's talking about here. He's not talking about the infants. Well, my point is that certainly there are mentally, people that are mentally unable to understand the Gospel. Certainly there are people that are mentally ill that we could say that are out of the way.

Sure. And he's going to have compassion upon those people. Of course he is. And certainly we could say that, and again, it's saying that grace abounds more than sin. And that certainly that is an expression of God's grace and certainly an expression of God's compassion. Of course it is. And so the idea that because they were born in original sin, it seems to me we can say, well, grace will abound more than original sin and compassion will be upon those that are most certainly infants or ignorant.

Why not? You make a category error. See, one abounds more than the other, different categories of abounding of God's grace and then more than designates an equivalent. It's almost an is of identity here where one thing is related directly to another, but that's not really the case. So you're doing that mistake. So it's an issue of logic.

I'm sorry, but it is. So look, the Bible teaches that all people who go to hell do so because they deserve it. They're under sin. Now, if anybody goes to hell, that's why. If any infants go, that's why. Now, do they? That's another issue.

Then we get to see if the epsilogism is going to be sound. The second premise. Well, correct me if I'm wrong. According to your theology, you believe that God predestines the elect from the foundation of the world to go to heaven and all the rest will be condemned, correct? Yes.

Okay. If that is indeed the case, then everything you're doing as a Christian apologist, everything every preacher is doing, everything every missionary is doing is meaningless and valueless because it has no bearing on who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Oh, so then you're saying, then, meaning is only derived on whether or not someone goes to heaven or not, not if it's centered in God's glory and his purpose and decrees. You made another mistake.

You don't know the universal aspect of God's glory and meaning is based on him. We've got a break. We'll talk to you later, buddy. Hey, folks, three open lines, 877-207-2276.

Ryan keeps calling and making logic errors. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Okay, everyone, welcome back to the show. Let's see, let's get on with Elijah from Pennsylvania. Elijah, welcome, you're on the air. Hey, Matt, how you doing? Doing all right, hanging in there, man.

What do you got? Yeah, my question is concerning Judas Iscariot in Matthew 10. Your position is that Judas Iscariot was never safe to begin with, am I correct?

Yes. Okay, so my question is if Judas Iscariot was never safe to begin with, then why in Matthew 10 did Jesus give them a charismatic gift of casting out demons, giving the sick, raising the dead, along with the other apostles who were saved? It doesn't say he gave them charismatic gifts.

The Greek word is charismas, not there. It just says he gave them the authority to do that. He gave them the authority over the unclean spirits.

The word authority is exousia. So he gave them that authoritative legal right over the demonic forces and to be able to heal. And there's nothing in the scripture that says you have to be a Christian in order for that to occur, because obviously right there, Judas knew from the beginning who it was who would betray him and who was the devil from the beginning, as it says in John 6.

So there you go. So God can give unbelievers powers to cast out demons until 6. Okay, so you asked a question, and the Bible says, let me go to this, John 6.64. Jesus says there are some of you who do not believe, for Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe and who it was that would betray him. Obviously, Judas did not believe Jesus was really who he said he was. So he knew who'd betray him and who it was who did not believe.

So the implication is they're one and the same. Jesus knew that in Matthew 10.1, he summoned his 12 disciples whom he called specifically. He knew Judas would do what he was doing, and he called them. Judas could not have done what he had done if Jesus had not called him to be a disciple, because he had to be a disciple in order to betray him to know where he was and have private information and knowledge of him. And Jesus gave him the ability to cast out demonic forces. It does not say he had to be saved for that.

Okay. And my second question would be out of 1 John 4, 2, and 3. Have you heard that the epistle of 1 John was written to combat Gnosticism that was written into the church? Yes, and part of the evidence of that is in 1 John 1 as the issue of sin, and that's why John opens it up with, we have seen and touched and felt, because in Gnosticism in that context, the spiritual purity could not inhabit materiality. And this is why he goes into 1 John 4, 1, and he says, test the spirits, and he says, this is how you know that Jesus has come in the flesh. That's what he's talking about.

Okay. Yeah, and my question is in verse 3. Now, in the King James, the New King James, and in the Aramaic Bible in plain English, in verse 3 they all say, and the one who does not confess that Jesus has come in the flesh is not of God, but all the other translations omit has come in the flesh. And I think, you know, that kind of bothers me, because the point in verse 3 of him saying every spirit that does not confess Jesus has come in the flesh is not of God, you know, he's trying to point out the error of this Antichrist Gnosticism, but all the modern translations omit that. Does that bother you as well? I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you referring to verse 3 that omits in the flesh, or verse 2?

Yeah. Because it's in verse 2. Okay, because it's in verse 2 that Jesus has come in the flesh, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. So, I'm not an expert on Greek manuscript trees, the issue of the historicity, but I don't see any problem here at all.

Okay? The reason why I bring it up is because, you know, in King James, New King James, in verse 3, it's following the same train of thought as verse 2, but like, you know, the following verse in the other translations omit that, and it's making it seem like, you know, anybody who just simply confesses Jesus. Generally speaking, the rule is the older the manuscript, the more reliable it is, the more accurate. The King James was translated with roughly 6th century documents, 5th and 6th century documents.

And since then, older documents have been found. And so, for example, the NASB is translated with, I forget which tree, but it's older. And so, the ESV does not contain the words in the flesh, the King James does, and the RSV does not, the LEB does not, the NIV does not. So, this is just a cursory examination, but generally speaking, I've found that when there's a discrepancy, generally the King James is the one that's not correct, because it's got later manuscript attestation instead of earlier, and the earlier is more accurate, and that would be the issue, generally speaking. Yeah, because I'm on BibleHub, and the only translation that I see that had verse 3 in that way is the King James, the New King James, and the Aramaic Bible in plain English. I'm not sure how accurate the Aramaic Bible is in English. I wouldn't go to the Aramaic Bible, I mean, to see what they said. And when looking at the Greek, I don't have my textual apparatus with me here, where I could look up a variation and to see what text, what manuscript trees have what variant in it.

But there's obviously a variant issue here. But because what I've seen is a consensus that the more modern translations omit the phrase in the flesh, it's because it's not there in the more reliable and the earlier manuscripts. And it looks like it was an addition by the King James. Unfortunately, what then happens is people will say, well, the King James is true automatically, and all the other ones are anti-Christ because they removed it from the flesh, so they're gnostic. And it's very faulty reasoning.

It's very fallacious argumentation. I didn't know that the King James manuscripts date back to only the 6th century. I didn't know that. Back in the day when I studied it, it was 5th and 6th century documents is what they had, because we're talking 1611. Since then, they have found a lot more manuscripts.

They just have, and they're still finding them. So I remember 40 years ago, to the best of my recollection, I think it was like 53 or 5,400 manuscripts. And in the past few years, I've been reading commentaries that say 6,000 manuscripts. So they're still finding stuff. If they find, say, a manuscript that they can date to, say, the year 140, and it has in here in the flesh, I'd be like, whoa, that's really important.

Then you've got to study what tree, I mean tree not as a plant, but what manuscript tree or lineage it was, where and why, and then how it would fit into the manuscript evidence. It's actually an interesting topic once you get into it and see how these guys do this stuff. They're very serious about it. But anyway, that's what I would say so far. Okay?

Yep. All right, buddy. Hope that helps. All right, man. Thanks. Have a good one. All right. You too.

God bless. All right, let's get to Matt from the People's Republic of California. Hey, Matt, welcome.

You're on the air. Hey, how are you doing? Doing all right. Hang in there, man.

What have you got? So I'm a return caller yesterday. Okay. I was talking with regards to, well, yeah, part of it was involving David possibly being held eternally. But I have a question. You brought up yesterday about where you said Jesus was asked why he spoke in parables. And you said that he says that he did that so that I guess the Jewish, the teachers of the law would not understand and their sins would not be forgiven and they would not, like, repent. Here, let me read it to what Jesus says. To you have been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside of the kingdom of God get everything in parables, so that while seeing they may see and not perceive, while hearing they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven. So he's speaking in parables so they won't be forgiven. Okay.

Go ahead. So it doesn't say anything about salvation. I mean, it may be that he doesn't want them to be seeking forgiveness at that time. Maybe there's always time frames.

It seems like biblically, you know, like there's seasons. Well, I think that that's worth consideration. You know, does it mean only for that time?

And, you know, I think it's worth looking at and seeing. Does it fit the context? Because a lot of times people have this idea that Jesus is the blonde-haired, blue-eyed Caucasian surfer dude dressed in a woman's nightgown. He's not? And that he wouldn't speak in such a way like this. It has to be something else. And so what they've done, a lot of people have constructed this Jesus in their own image, and he's standing at the door of your heart asking permission for you and your wisdom to let him in.

This kind of thing. And it doesn't fit the model when you really examine him more. But nevertheless, he's saying he speaks in parables so they won't be forgiven. And that's what we have to take it for, so they will not be forgiven.

That's what he says. I think yesterday you were citing that passage as kind of, I think, in support of those being elected or predestined. Elections is biblical. No true Christian who understands scripture can deny election. Because election is God's choosing. And it says in Ephesians 1-4, God chose us in him before the foundation of the world.

That's what election is. It's right there. So anybody who would deny, they're going to deny the Bible. Okay, so that's there.

I didn't like it when I first read it, but that's what it says. But I think you said yesterday that he was speaking in parables so that those particular people that wouldn't understand would not be saved. They wouldn't have an opportunity to be saved. If they understood, they might have an opportunity to be saved.

And so I think I touched upon yesterday briefly that it doesn't seem to logically pan out. If God has elected and predestined those to be saved already before the foundation of the earth, then it's already settled, the case is already settled. God already knows who he will save. Good theology. Absolutely good theology. Which makes sense why he'd speak in parables to the non-elect so they won't get saved.

That's where I would need you to enlighten me. Because if it's already settled, there's nothing Jesus could say or do that would have those people receiving salvation. It's already a settled matter.

That's that easy. It's a great question. We're out of time. Man, I wish I could get into that.

It has to do with logical priority and temporal priority, election, federal headship. It's a great topic. Oh, man, it's good stuff.

But we're out of time. Call back Monday, okay? We'll see if we can tackle it Monday. Good stuff. Have a good weekend.

You too, man. God bless. Hey, folks, we're out of time.

That was a great question. Oh, hey, we'll see you Monday. God bless. Bye. Bye. Bye.