The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. All you've got to do is dial 8772072276. I want to hear from you. We've got four open lines. If you want, you can give me a call.
I want to hear from you. It's real easy to do. I've just got to let you guys know that the summer months are difficult for us financially. I'm just going to let you know that we definitely need your support. If you'd be so kind as to consider even supporting at $5 a month, if you could do a little bit more, that'd be great.
It's easy to do. We do need it. I'm just letting you know. You can go to karm.org forward slash donate if you like the radio show and if you want to keep it on the air. Because if we have to start making cuts, the show will go first because we have missionaries who support. That's what we're going to do.
We've been doing radio for 20 years, so that's a long time. But I'll just let you know. All right, so maybe karm.org, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G forward slash donate.
Please consider that. All right, now I think that is everything. I think everything, all the text is working okay. We get a lot of things that we do. We broadcast to Clubhouse and also to Discord.
Look at that open right now. And on Rumble and on Facebook and some other stuff. If you're curious to know where to go to find out, all you've got to do is go to karm.org forward slash social media.
And you'll be led to places. It's really easy to do. All right, I think that's about it.
I think that is it. So, hey, look, why don't we just do this? Why don't we just get on the call with Alan from Virginia. Alan, welcome. You're on the air.
Alan, I don't hear you. Well, let's make sure. Yes. There we go. Now I hear you. All right.
So what do you got? So I was looking this up a little bit. And what are your thoughts on theological fatalism? Can you define theological fatalism? So I looked on Google and it says the thesis that infallible foreknowledge of a human act makes the act necessary and hence unfree. If there is a being who knows the entire future infallibly, then the human act is free. Yeah, that's faulty logic.
And it's dealt with the issue of open theism. They talk about the same kind of a thing and they say, if God knows something, you're not free to do it when you do it. Because if he knows that you're going to do it, then you're not free to do something else.
Right. And I say to them, but you see, the thing is, if, if from your perspective, I'll say, if God, if you have free will, the ability to choose, then God knows that your choice is going to be because that's what you're going to decide. He's not making you do it. So he knows what you're going to decide. You're free to make a different decision. But in reality, you're not going to because you're the one who determines what you're going to choose. And so you determined it.
God knows it. And that's it. It just doesn't work. It's refuted that quickly.
Yeah, I have a hard time actually understanding how to believe it to be refuted by so I guess. OK, let's go. Let's go through it slowly. OK. OK. All right. So let's develop a premise here.
If something is known ahead of time of a free will creature, then when that person, that free will individual person comes to the point of making that decision, then if it's already known what he will do, then he's not free to make it when he does it. OK, that's the idea. Right. OK.
So here's an analogy. So my daughter loves to watch a show at 9 o'clock, 9 p.m. And let's say she's 11 years old and her room is a complete disaster. It could take about 20 days to clean it up. All right.
It's really just pretty bad. So I say to her at 830, at 830 I say to her, I want you to clean up your room before you watch that show. Now I know she can't get it done in time. I also know that what she's going to do is say, well, Dad, I can't finish it in that length of time.
Can I do a little bit now and some more tomorrow, things like that. So I know that's what she's going to do. Maybe not the exact words, but that's what she's going to do.
Now I know that ahead of time. And I bring about the circumstances in which she's going to do exactly what I want her to do. Just admit she can't take care of it in time and then ask for a deal of some sort. I'm going to say, okay. So I arrange the circumstances.
I put it in play. She freely responds according to what I know she'll do. I didn't force her to do that, now did I? No, you didn't force her.
That's right. So she is the one who freely chose to make, you know, Dad, you know, can we just work on it later? And then I say, yeah, sure. And then we watch the show together.
Maybe I'll help her a little, something afterwards, that kind of a thing. So that's just an illustration. So now let's get a little bit more technical. So Adam's in the garden. And in the garden, there's the tree and the serpent and Eve and the two trees, et cetera, and the fruit and all of that. And God said to Adam, he said, don't eat the fruit, because if you do, you're going to die. So when Adam ate the fruit, no one forced him. No one took his hand and put it on the fruit and yanked it from the tree and then shoved it into his mouth and then moved his jaw up and down and made him swallow it.
It didn't happen like that. Adam freely chose. So what we would say is he is the efficient cause. That's just a term that's used in philosophy. He's just the efficient cause of his action. So he's the one who generated his will. He's the one who generated the movement of his arm. He's the one who generated the decision.
No one else did. So he's responsible for his own action. However, God ordained that he would do that, because God is the one who created the universe, the galaxy, solar system, planet, the Garden of Eden with the two trees, with Adam and Eve, and let the devil come in. So God is what we call in this situation the proximate cause of Adam's sin. So it's proximate. It's like the word approximate.
Pretty close, but not exactly. That's the idea of proximate. So God set these things in motion. God set the conditions in place, but we already have determined that Adam freely chose. He initiated his own choice out of his own will. Therefore it's his choice. God did not initiate that choice within him. Adam did. So though the circumstances are arranged by God, he's not the one responsible for Adam's sin. Adam is, because he's the one who initiated his own rebellious choice. Okay?
Are you with me so far? It's a little difficult to me, because I guess I kind of did believe in the term open theism, I guess. Yeah, open theism is bad. Open theism is bad, and I'll tell you why.
Not a reason, but let's continue with this. So some people will respond and say, but wait a minute, if God knew exactly what Adam would do in that situation, then how is Adam free? And my response is, if God knew exactly how Adam would freely respond, then how is he free? Well, if they ask that question, by definition he's freely responding. The answer is in the question. If he had free will and God ordained that he would exercise his free will and knows exactly what his free will choice is going to be, God's not choosing what he's going to do.
God is choosing the approximate conditions by which he knows the outcome will be, and Adam's going to freely choose within it. It's all that's going on. It's not that hard. Here's a really simple illustration.
A goldfish is in a bowl, and it's free to move wherever it wants in that bowl, but we can move that bowl around into another room. Okay. Okay. Make sense? Yeah. I guess it's the idea of, I don't think I have enough time to kind of fully grasp it, I guess respond properly with the right words, but I think that may have helped me a little bit.
What's that? I think that may have helped me a little bit, but I don't think I have enough time to kind of have a proper word of response, I guess. Well, let's go over it one more time a little bit.
I'll keep it simpler. Adam freely chose to rebel. No one made him do it, so it's his own choice. God put him in a circumstance in which he would freely make that choice. By definition, it's a free choice. That's what a free choice is. By definition, it's a free choice. No one forced him. He acted consistent with his nature. No one forced him. So it's a choice because God ordained it to be allowed to have multiple things he could do, whereas what he chose, the actual decision, doesn't imply he didn't have choice in the first place. Right. Is that right?
That's exactly right. Because Adam could have chosen to throw the fruit, to football kick it, to ignore it, to throw it at the serpent, to throw it at a rock, to eat it. There's all kinds of options he could have done with the fruit.
He could have just gone to a different tree. And so he could have done all kinds of options. He just chose to rebel.
He knew he would choose to rebel because God knows everything. Okay. I think that makes the stupidest sense now. Now here's a problem with open theism. Let me show you why it's really bad.
It's really bad. Open theists say that God cannot know the future free will choices of people. Otherwise, they're not free, which just doesn't work. So they'll say that. Okay.
Well, that's the case. How many free will choices does an average person make who lives to be 50 years old? A million? Let's say a million.
Okay. Probably a lot more. But let's just say a million. If he doesn't know the one million choices of each individual and there's 25 billion people that have lived, that's 25 billion times a billion. There's 250. I don't know how many billions. It's like quadrillions, I think, of choices. Now, how can God then know who's going to even exist? Because what choices is a person going to make marrying somebody else, having children, or not having children? So how's he going to know which sins to impute to Christ 2,000 years ago? If he can't know what choices people are going to make to bring others into existence, as well as what choices he's going to make in order to sin in various ways, how's he going to impute individual sins of people? He can't.
So it risks the efficiency of the cross. Go ahead. Okay. And also, I guess, too, if you're saying that you don't have... I'm sorry, never mind. Go ahead. Anyways, no, I'm good.
Thank you, then. Does it help? Can I ask you one more question?
Yeah, I think it helps a lot. Okay, good. Okay, before the break, we go. Okay, can you explain how Matthew 2436 isn't a contradiction? All right, Matthew 2436. Let's go to it.
Matthew 2436. All right. That says, but in the day and hour, no one knows. Okay. It's not a contradiction, and I'll start explaining it, but actually I can't because the break's just starting. So hold on, and I'll explain it after the break, okay?
And I'll show you how it's not a problem at all. All right. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. We'll be right back. May the Lord bless you. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone. Welcome back to the show.
Hey, I just want to give a shout out and say thanks to Matt, not me, but another Matt who sent me an aliens model, which is right behind me on the shelf right up there, if you can see it, right up there. And for those who don't know, back in the day, back when I was in college and I was taking 27 units on a quarter system, which is like 30 units in a semester, 30 to 35, it was just horrendous. My dad had just got out of the hospital. My sister-in-law was just going out of the hospital.
I just got engaged. Chernobyl had happened. My future wife was over in Europe, and it was just stress. I mean, it was stress.
I had just moved. It was just the stress level was really high, and I watched aliens like three days in a row in a theater. Yeah, another one because it was such a stress relief. And so it became a movie that I watched frequently, well, twice a year maybe, and I've seen it 73 times.
Seventy-three, I know. I got issues. And so someone sent me an aliens thing. So it's the second one I've got.
People have sent me about aliens, movie aliens. The second one, which I've seen 73 times. The first one about 15 times.
And, yes, I can stop whenever I want. So there, Joanne says she's never seen the movie. What a heretic. Wow. How can you not see that movie?
You have to see it in the dark by yourself. That's the way to do it. Okay, let's get back on the air with Alan. Okay, Alan. All right. So, oh, yeah, you there? Yep. All right, so no one knows the day nor the hour.
Okay, you ready? Yep. Okay, so you'll notice that Jesus calls us the bride. You'll also notice that he'll come back and get the bride with trumpets. And he's called the bridegroom. And he gives parables about the bride in the wedding feast. And Revelation talks about the wedding feast of the lamb.
So there's this wedding stuff that he sprinkles throughout his ministry. And there's a reason for it. So let me give you the cultural background because it takes a bit to explain it. And then the phrase will come up and they'll go, oh.
All right, so here it goes. So basically when a couple was going to be married, they had basically a year-long betrothal. And a family's parents would arrange with other family's parents. And then once it was agreed, they were considered to be betrothed without being betrothed. If they were to break that bond, that engagement, they had to go through a legal ceremony of breaking it.
So during that period of time, they would make plans, the families would make plans to get together where it was going to be, what day it would be so that they could have the fatted calf produced, the wine for the feast produced, food, the company, the lodging. It took a while. It took about a year because they didn't have Internet and e-mail. Boom, boom, hey, we're done it.
I can get a plane ticket tonight if I want and be in San Diego tonight if I want. You can't do that back then. So it took a while. So one of the other things that was needed was during that time, the son was supposed to build an additional room onto the father's house. He was supposed to build an additional room. Now, I think it's in John 14. In John 14, verse 2, Jesus says, In my father's house are many dwelling places, if it were not so I would have told you, for I go to prepare a place for you.
If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am you may be also. So what's going on there is that in the wedding feast, when they were all there, I'm going to come back to it in a minute, but when they were all there, I'm going to say this, the bridegroom's friends would say to him, like the day's here for the wedding, when's your father going to give you the okay to go? Because it was a father who, it's a very patriarchal system, and the father had honor in the home and in the society. He was the one who would be the father of the groom.
He was the one who gave the final authority to say, go get the bride. The trumpeters would be ready. The feast people would be ready.
The wedding party would be ready to go to where she was. It wasn't across the country. When I was in Israel seven, eight years ago, I saw a wedding feast, a wedding thing where we're at in Jerusalem near the willing wall.
It wasn't too far from there, like a thousand feet. There was celebration, there was dancing, there was all this stuff, and the bride and the groom were being carried. No, they were being walked through, and all this celebration.
It reminded me of this. So when the father said go, then he would take the trumpeters, the accompanying people, and they would go to where the bride was, not too far away because she had to be there and be ready, moved in, whatever it was, to that area. Then he would go and come back because the groom, once upon married, would then take her into the new home and consummate the marriage, et cetera, later on.
So that's what Jesus was saying. I come to, not to consummate, but I come to prepare a place for you. All right, having said all of that, the friends of the bridegroom would say, of the bride, I keep getting this mixed up, of the bridegroom, of the groom. The friends of the groom would say, when will the father tell you to go?
The bride. And the idiomatic response of the culture was, no man knows a day nor the hour, but the father alone. It was just how it was stated. It's just an idiomatic expression. Okay, so it's not meant to be literally only God the Father knows. It's to make kind of a relational thing to how this works. Okay. And also check it out. I kind of figured it wasn't literally interpreted like that.
Yeah, it's not. And I'll show you something else too with this. Remind me of Revelation 19, 12. But also the very next verse in Matthew 24 is verse 37, for the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. That means the return of Christ. And the return of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4, 16 through chapter 5, verse 2, is when the trumpets come out of heaven and Christ returns. So all this plays into account of the return of Christ, the trumpet going to prepare a place for you, et cetera. Now, I need to write an article on this and show the documentation for it. So I've been teaching this like this for 20 years, and in two different conferences, and in two places we would have lunch or dinner after the conference.
You know, we're done with the conference and people would join us. And two times I had two Jewish guys come up to me afterwards, and they were Christians. They were completed Jews. Two of them said to me that they were very, very impressed that I knew that. And they said, no Gentile knows about this. How did you learn this? I said, I don't know. I just learned it in the past someplace. And they said, and two of them were very impressed because it's just not common knowledge, but that's what it is. So people have sent me documentation for the cultural norms of this.
I just need to produce a document out of it. But that's it. Okay? So some people will say, well, that's just the way it is, and Jesus didn't know, so he can't be God. That's where the argument goes. Then I'll go to Revelation 19.12.
And, uh-oh, was it? Yeah, Revelation 19.12, come on. And I'll say, okay, so are you saying then that if you, because I gave you the explanation, but you reject the explanation. Now you're saying Jesus just didn't know, so he can't be God. Is that because he didn't know something, so he can't be God?
And they'll say, well, yes. Okay, so Revelation 19.12, his eyes are a flame of fire. Jump up, Jesus, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written on him which no one knows except himself. By definition, that means the Father doesn't know, so therefore the Father isn't God.
The logic doesn't work because the Jews use exaggeration a lot in their speaking, and that's what it is. All right, buddy? Okay? Thank you, Matt. All right, there's the music. Got to go. All right, Alan, God bless. All right, God bless.
All right. If you're here for these messages, please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick.
All right, everybody, welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. And would you please consider supporting us, $5 or maybe a little more? Just go to karme.org forward slash donate. We really do need that.
Please help us out. All right, let's get to Wes from the United States someplace. Hey, Wes, welcome.
You're on the air. Good evening. Good to talk to you again. We talked a little bit yesterday about King James Bible, but it was the last few minutes. Oh, yeah.
I was going to call you back tonight. Yeah. So we were talking about your view of inspiration, kind of you can explain why you think that only the original were inspired and not the opposite translation. Yeah, when we define inspiration, inspiration deals with the autographs. And so it's kind of a play on words.
It's kind of tricky to get through. So the autographs, the original writings, are the things that were actually directly inspired by God. So a copy is a copy of something that's inspired. Now the question then becomes is, so to speak, the English inspired?
Well, yeah, it is. It's inspired because it's God's word. It's the nature of his word to be inspired. But the issue is also that the copies are not perfect, like the ending of Mark, Mark 16, 9 through 20. There are 17 non-Markan words used in a non-Markan sense. They don't even appear in the rest of the Gospel of Mark, and there's two different endings in the Gospel of Mark.
So that's a fact. The woman caught in adultery in John 8 is in different places in early manuscripts. So the proof of what I'm trying to say is something that reminds me that the manuscripts aren't perfect, but they're very close to it. If the manuscripts aren't perfect, because there are textual variants, like the word the is an O with a little rough breathing mark over it, a little comma over it, and if that little thing is missed by a copyist or flakes off a piece of a pyre, which can happen, and someone copies it, that's called a variant. So is the copy, let's just say, inspired? So let's say 500 years later someone copied from an original text. Let's just say that. And he copied everything very well, and let's just say he messed up on one word, the word the, which is a single letter O.
He missed it. Let's just say that, okay, because people get tired, and they don't do things perfect all the time. Well, now is the entire document inspired? Well, yeah, but in what sense? It's inspired because it's the word of God, but the copyist was not inspired when he copied it. And though there's a variant, the variant does not invalidate the truth of the inspiration of what God has said. So we would say we have copies of inspired documents, and what we hold in our hand, yeah, it's inspired, even in the English.
You see how this is kind of weaves back and forth through things. I do, but your original statement saying that only the original authors were inspired, I don't, I'm not sure. Like when we talked on Friday, I had originally talked about Open Theism, and you said that the King James Bible was wrong on it.
That's why it kind of made me think we would need to talk about this first. You said that Open Theism did not gather its doctrine from the scripture. Do you have any place in scripture that is giving you the idea that only the original authors are inspired? Like the original authors are inspired.
I'm not saying that the copyists are given words, but the idea that original autographs are inspired only. Is that a biblical foundation? 2 Timothy 3.16 says that the scriptures are inspired. That was his written, the written scripture. Scriptures are those things written.
It's not tradition. It's not counsels. And so Jesus authenticated the Old Testament in Luke 11, 43, 51, where he quoted, he just referenced the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah in that arrangement of the Old Testament. It was the first and last books, and he was authenticating it as being true. In the New Testament documents, the church as a whole, the body of believers, recognizes what is true. And so the inspiration is said to be about the writings. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 4.6, it says, do not exceed what is written.
So what's happening there is, it's right there. Not to exceed what's written. So what's written then becomes, by this statement, the standard by which you're not to exceed. And Paul knew that what he was writing was scripture, and Peter knew what Paul was writing was scripture, et cetera. So we would say from those things that that's how we know that the original writers, they were inspired. We started with 2 Timothy 3.16, it says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. In verse 15, it says that Timothy knew the scriptures. Did Timothy know the original autographs?
No. What Timothy held was given by inspiration. Timothy held copies, possibly Greek copies, Greek translations or something. You're not getting what I'm saying. I'm not saying the copies aren't... There's two senses in which you can say inspired.
This topic is really deep, and there's another sense which I haven't even brought up because I don't want to stir the pot too much. But the originals are absolutely inspired. The copies are copies of inspired documents, and when we're reading them, we are reading the words of God, and the words of God are inspired by their nature. There's a difference between the actual writer, the author, being directly inspired through his person, his mind, heart, soul, to write exactly what God wanted. That's different than you and I reading what they wrote, because they were inspired directly. Are the variants inspired as well?
What? A variant inspired? Are the variants inspired? No.
Why would you say that? Did Timothy not have any variants? He had exact copies of the original autograph? I don't know what Timothy had. So he's with Paul, and Paul was inspired. I'm just curious, why are you being so meticulous to try and work through little minutiae?
What's the ultimate reason? Because you're saying that the King James Bible that we don't have any Bible that is given by inspiration today. Are you saying the King James in the English was inspired by God directly?
Are you? You're not even answering the question. That's wrong. I'll tell you why it's wrong. Because if it's the case that the King James is inspired in the English directly by God, then all other translations of all languages have to be done for the 1611 King James.
That's a problem. Why would you say that? Because the King James... You're assuming that the King James are inspired in the same way that the original autograph was inspired.
You asked. Because the King James gets things wrong. And I can show you exactly one place where it does. It gets it wrong out of the Greek text. Are you saying to me...
I've never met somebody who holds your position. I've always heard about them, so now I'm kind of thrilled. That now you're saying the 1611 in the English was directly inspired by God so that the English 1611 is now the absolute proper standard of inspiration. And it's more accurate than the Greek manuscripts. Is that correct? Oh, it's not?
No, no, no. We're talking on two different definitions of inspired. I believe that the Bible says that God, through the Holy Spirit, not only breathes out the words to the original authors, but also breathes on the copies and the translations as long as they are... as long as the words and any variance in them still faithfully represent God's word.
They can be called, given by inspiration, so that we can have faith to know that the words that we have today are authoritative. Of course they are. Just as authoritative as the original autograph.
No, they're not. The King James blows it. It flat out does. I can prove it.
I want a Bible that I can trust as authoritative beyond Matt Smith or any other... Okay, you're not listening to me. I keep telling you I can prove it, and you don't even bite on that.
I can prove it to you by looking at the Greek, by going into a certain verse, and show you how the King James messes it up badly. I can show it, but you don't want to see it. And I've told people this before when I show it to them. But I'd like to see it in the original autograph. You're going to show me a copy, right?
There are no original autographs that we have. Original means an original manuscript. It doesn't mean that. But what it does mean is that we have the copies of them, and they are so exceedingly well preserved. So the verse I'm talking about doesn't have the...
The verse is preserved at their... I'm sorry. I apologize for talking over you. I apologize for talking over you. We have a break. Hold on.
What you're doing is you're putting your loyalty to the King James above everything else. That's a problem. We'll be right back after these messages. Three open lines, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.
Here's Matt Slick. Hey, everybody. How you doing? We're having a lot of fun during the break. I'm playing with the lights behind me and stuff, and people are saying, no, brighter, not this, not that.
A lot of fun. All right, let's get back on with Wes. Okay, Wes, you still there? I am. All right, so you think the King James is it, the best there is, right? Yes, I believe the Holy Spirit has confirmed through the church the King James Bible, that he has breathed on the King James Bible. Okay.
How about the NASB as he breathes on the NASB? No. Okay. So then the Greek manuscripts are copies of the originals.
Okay? They're aware of that, right? Yeah. And so we translate out of the Greek manuscripts. Even the King James people did that, right? Yeah. Okay. So we have incredibly good, well-preserved manuscripts.
You've got to understand something. I'm going to show you something here. When they would write the manuscripts, they'd write letters in the Greek, okay, and a codex is a page like we have in a book called a codex. They'd write the letters, but the letters are also numbers. So when they would do a copy, they would add up the letters, and they'd verify the copy with the original. This is how it was done. And of all of the New Testament documents that are collected, 6,000 supporting Greek manuscripts are 99.5% accurate.
The lowest I've heard is 98.5% identical, actually. Okay? Right. So when we look at the Romans 518, we find out there's no textual challenge to it. The text says this. It says what it actually says in the original.
That's it. And the King James translates it badly. It just flat-out does. Now we're so bold as to say they got it wrong because what it says in the original text, Greek, which I've studied this verse for 30 years. So then that's through one transgression, condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness, justification of life to all men. There's no verb in the verse, but there's two sentences joined by conjunction. The sentences are structured like this. A man's action had a result.
That's what a structure does. So through one transgression, that's Adam's sin, condemnation to all men. And we know that what Adam did made everyone a sinner because the next verse says through one man's disobedience that many were made sinners. By Adam's sin, we were all made sinners.
We know that. So we would say the verb that we would put in there resulted in that. Even so, through one act of righteousness, there resulted justification of life to all men. But the problem is you can't have everybody be justified.
So what they did was... It's not a Calvinistic system. It has nothing to do with Calvinism. It's Bible. I'm talking to you Bible right there. That's what the Bible says. That's what the Greek says.
You could submit to it. Or you can rebel and you can hold on to the King James idolatry all you want. And you can try and distract and say it was Calvinist. I'm trying to give you the text what the Greek says. And here you are rebelling against what this says. I'm trying to tell you.
I'm calling you out on the carpet. And this is what a lot of the King James onlyists do. And they make grave mistakes.
And this is a significant place where they do it. Romans 5.18, because it says what it says in the Greek, a lot of the translators, the ESV blows it. The NIV blows it. The King James really messes it up. Because what they do is they realize that though sentence A in the Romans 5.18 is what governs sentence B. Because it says so also or even so.
Just like what was said before. So then as through one transgression, condemnation to all men. So also.
Or even so as the NSB says. Through one act of righteousness, justification of life to all men. Well, wait a minute. The King James people said it cannot be that all men are justified. So what they did was they borrowed words from three verses earlier and they inserted it in. They inserted it in, the free gift. And they took those words from verse 15 and put it into verse 18. And it says through one transgression, the free gift came to all men. Do not say the free gift in the Greek.
It's not there. But the King James writers put it in there. And the reason they did it is because they understood what the second part would imply. But they failed to do their theological homework. What they did with this, they said, okay, justification of life to all men.
Justification means you're saved. All men means every individual. They assumed the word all men, the phrase, means every individual. They didn't do their homework.
They did it because they had done their homework. So you're saying they were anti-Calvinistic theologically? Dude, dude, dude, you've got to stop that. What is with you? What is with you and anti-Calvinistic? I'm talking about what the text says. Wow. But you said the King James translators did that because they didn't do their theological homework.
They did not. Are you talking about the theological homework of limited atonement? No. I'm talking about the homework what the Scriptures teach. Let me show you something. Let me show you something. The Bible says we've died with Christ, Romans 6-8. We're crucified with Christ, Romans 6-8.
And are you saying the ESV? Can you hold on, please? We don't have a whole bunch of... Look, they blew it in this verse, too.
They blew it. And I'm going to show you something. I'm going to show you something. The Bible teaches that Christians have died with Christ. We're crucified with Christ. Romans 6-6, Romans 6-8. You can go to Colossians 3-3. You can go to Colossians 2-20. It talks about us having died with Christ. Would you agree with me that only the Christians have died with Christ?
Would you? Do unbelievers die with Christ? Okay. So only believers have died with Christ. Good. Now I'm going to read you a verse.
Okay. The love of Christ controls us having concluded this that one died for all, therefore all died. Who's the all who died? Who's the all who died?
I didn't follow that, but I'm trying to follow it. It's hard to... Because you're not listening. ...because there's a delay there.
Okay, I get you. For the love of Christ controls us having concluded this that one died for all, therefore all died. He says all died. Who's the all who died? Since only those who've died with Christ are believers. Who's the all who died? I don't know what verse you're in. 2 Corinthians 5-14. Okay.
Who's the all who died? You have to understand that when you study what the word actually says, your theology will be fine-tuned. But if you go with what translators think it means, then they get it wrong sometimes.
It's very, very, very good. But this verse, Romans 5-18, is significant because it's dealing with federal headship. And the King James messed it up. Flat out, it messed up Romans 5-18. The translators got it wrong.
Here's my question. Who's the all who died? Therefore he died for all, therefore all died. Who's the all who died? In 2 Corinthians 5-14 it says, if one died for all, then were all dead.
Okay, great. Not all have died. Then were all dead. I didn't say, I didn't say, I didn't say I have died. Hey, Wes, Wes, stop for a second.
Wes, Wes, Wes, you're not listening, dude. You keep changing things. I didn't say all have died. It says all died. Right. All died.
Those all that died in Christ, those people all died in Adam. Okay. Okay, well, I'm trying to tell you something, but you refuse. And we're going to move on.
And that's very clear in the King James. Okay, look, we're going to move along. We're moving along.
We're moving along. He doesn't care. He's not teachable about this, folks. Ladies and gentlemen, he's not teachable about those issues. He's loyal to the King James. It's above reason.
It's above the Greek. It's above analysis. And when you get like that, it's just, I've met people like that. And it's very unfortunate. They're just not teachable.
They're not open to being corrected or to learn out of the word of God. And we're just going to move along because it just becomes useless at this point. Let's get to Alberto from Georgia. Alberto, welcome. You're on the air. Yes, good evening, Max. I recommend if you're a gentleman, go on Google search, Ankerberg versus King James, KGB only debate playlist.
Type it in Google like that. Okay, my question is now. James White has written stuff. Luke Wayne, who used to work with us, he wrote a whole section on the King James only problem. It's a great translation, but there are better ones out there.
And anyone who's loyal to the King James or the degree that this guy is, is just blinding himself from being taught. I know. I understand. That's all.
It's just ridiculous. Yes, I understand. No way.
That's okay. Okay, anyway, my question is this. Okay, my question is this. Kent Baldwin said that when, in Genesis 2 and verse 19, that God made the animals appear out of the ground in front of the atoms, so he could call them names, to name them. But I don't believe that. I believe God recreated all the animals before he created Adam, and then he called on animals supernaturally to come to Adam, where he could call them. Not that on the garden, God recreated the animals in front of Adam, so he could name them. Do you agree with that or not? I don't know what you're saying, because the text seems to say what you're saying.
Well, Kent can hold them. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. So the text says out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky and brought them, until God brought them to the man, to see what he would call them.
That's what he did. Okay, so that's what the Bible says. So what's the objection? What's the problem?
My question is that God supernaturally made them appear in front of the eyes of Adam, every single animal, so he could name them, or these are the animals that God would have created before he created Adam. What? I'm just confused. Listen to me, listen to me. Wait a second, Albert. Man was created on the sixth day, and you should know the animals. Albert, let me finish, please.
Go ahead. The animals and the birds were created before Adam. Then when Adam was made, God brought them to him to name. So I'm confused.
What's the problem? Okay, I agree with that. I agree with you. But Ken Hovind teaches that when God puts Adam in the garden, and then when he woke up, and then supernaturally then God started popping them in front of the ground, each animal in front of his eyes to name them, and the God of Eden in front of him. Okay, so you're saying that Ken Hovind said that God made them kind of just appear? Yeah, right in front of him, he could just name them, name them, appear right in front of him again. We're like, whoop, giraffe, whoop in front of his face, whoop, another animal, or a bird.
Just like that. No, we make them appear right in front of him. Yeah, he can't say that. He cannot say that. Because the text doesn't say that. It doesn't say how it was done. It just says God brought them to the man.
That's all it says. We don't say by transportation. We don't say by semi-truck.
We don't say a direct line of animals would after another pass through the garden. We don't know. It just says God brought them to the man.
So just leave it at what it says and brought them to the man. That's all. He's saying it popped right in front of him supernaturally right before he died. Well, he can say that, but there's nothing that says that's what happened. I know that. I've debated him.
I've debated Ken Hovind on some other stuff. But I'm saying it's not a logical thing to say this is what happened. You can say there's possibilities of how it was done, but we don't know. That's all you can do. All right? Okay. All right. All right, buddy. God bless.
We'll talk from Luke tomorrow. Hey, folks. May the Lord bless you.
Boy, interesting show. So much heresy. So little time. May the Lord bless you by His grace. We'll be back on here tomorrow. And we'll talk to you then. God bless you.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-08-16 19:14:23 / 2023-08-16 19:33:35 / 19