Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. It's Matt Slick Live! Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at karm.org. When you have questions about Bible doctrines, turn to Matt Slick Live!

Francis, taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Everybody, welcome to the show. It's me, Matt Slick.

Your list of Matt Slick Live. Hope you're all going to have a good day. I'm out of breath because I had to hurry up and got stuck in traffic. You guys know how that goes. Hey, look, if you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 877-207-2276. I want to hear from you. Give me a call and we can talk. If you are interested in emailing me, you can do that as well. All you have to do is just send an email to info at karm.org.

Info at karm.org and it should be fine there. You can give me a good ring. I mean, not a good ring, but you can give me an email there. Just put in the subject line radio comment or radio question. That's all you got to do. All right, and then we can get to... Also, if we got to get to... Let's get on the air here with Robert from California. Robert, welcome. You're on the air.

Hi, good day to you, Matt. My question is in revelation. I don't have the exact chapter. I'm kind of calling it by memory, but it speaks about five kings are fallen. One is, and one is yet to come, and the beast that comes out of the bottom is great.

He is the eighth king, but it's up to seven, and I want to know what your intake is on that. Okay, let's get to it then, my program here. So you're talking about the arrival of the Antichrist, I think, a little bit, right?

Revelation 17. Right now, I don't have the exact chapter. Okay, let me get to it. I'm doing it by memory. Okay, that's fine.

Yeah, I'm just opening up my program now. I had a... Let's just say I was out there in new traffic. All right, Revelation 17, here we go. All right, and what was it again?

The basic, what was it? It's about there being seven kings, five are fallen, and one is, and one is yet to come. Yes. Coincidentally, I just did an article on what political party would the Antichrist belong to, and it was interesting, and I actually went through some of this stuff. It was... Let's put it this way, it's a little confusing exactly on who and what and how it's all going to be done, but it looks like that the beast, which is the Antichrist, is going to be joined with a false prophet, and there's going to be a political move, which has seven heads and seven mountains on which the woman sits. A lot of people think that is the Roman Catholic Church, because the Vatican, they say, sits in seven small hills, and the woman, maybe Mary, who knows, there's a lot of its conjecture. But it looks like the kings deal with the political parties or nations that are fallen, and so the little king is the leader, maybe the Antichrist, who then will take over for a little while. That's basically what I've understood it to be.

Okay? Okay, and who do you believe the kings are? Are they kings or kingdoms or...?

Probably, they could be either. You see, it could be a president or something like that, not a literal king, but it's a seat of power, whether that is a nation, a government, an individual, we don't know. But the Antichrist will take control of the majority of the world, and you'll have to take his mark in order to buy and sell. He'll persecute people, and probably be homosexual, and be pro-abortion and things like that. So, this is what's going to happen. So that's what it looks like there.

The one that's not... Okay, I just wondered if it's just the same thing as the image in the book of Daniel, where he sees an image that's made up of different empires, and I wondered if there was a correlation between what Daniel saw and what John is describing in Revelation. Yeah, there is a correlation, because it talks about times, times and half of times. And so, and Daniel, trying to get to it, and yeah, that's right, Daniel 7, says he will speak out against the most high and wear down the saints of the highest one, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in the law, and he'll be given into his hand for time, times and half a time. And most people that I've studied who've talked about this say that that is the description of the Antichrist, a time, times and half a time, three and a half years.

A time is single, times is two, so a two plus one is three and a half, three and a half years of the seven year tribulation is what they do. So that's what that looks like is going on there, it's talking about the Antichrist. Okay, all right, Michael, thanks a lot. I like listening to you and I appreciate your insights very much.

Okay, well, appreciate that. Yeah, eschatology is not my forte in that knowing all the different views, but it's something we need to study, because the Bible talks a lot about it, and so I need to get even better at it. I know a lot of stuff, but there's a lot of balancing and a lot of verses in particular, like you've raised, so good stuff though. Do you write any books, any of your commentaries that you would recommend on Revelation? What I would do, and I don't have any specifics, I would go get a book that promotes premillennialism, a book that promotes amillennialism, and a book that promotes post-millennialism, and I would go through all of them and see which one makes the most sense, because the issue of Revelation, some say that it is chronological from the first chapter to the last chapter. Some say, not necessarily, it might be heptatic, which means seven. It might be seven views of the same set of events from different angles, and that's legitimate as well. Then there's the amillennial position, which I think makes a lot of sense, and then there's the premillennial position, which a lot of people go to Revelation 24. The post-millennialists say things are to get better in the world. I personally don't see that as being the case, but I think if you really want to study it and make up your own mind, that you should get a book that does all the views, or three books, small ones, that do representative views.

That's what I would do. Are you familiar with the book, The Battle in the Future, by Anthony Hockema? I know who Hockema is, and I haven't read that book in particular, so no, I'm not familiar with that one. Finally, some amillennialists, from what I've read the book, I thought I was very insightful, and he became a whole different view from what I used to be.

Yeah, same with me. I was converted to amillennialism about 25, 30 years ago, by reading some scriptures, and I haven't looked back. But it doesn't mean it's the right view.

I'm hoping that it's pre-tribulation rapture, and we get out of here, but I believe that's the case. So, I do say that you do need to study, make up your own mind, according to what you think, in all honesty and integrity, that you think the scriptures are teaching. That's what I would urge you to do.

That's what I would do. Okay. Okay, Matt, so thank you so much, and... Okay. All right, well, God bless. Okay. Talk to you later. Okay, bye. All right, hey, if you want to give me a call, all you've got to do is dial 8772072276.

That gets to Jamal from North Carolina. Welcome. You're on the air.

Hey, Matt, this is your vice president of the Slickism Congress. How you doing today, sir? Doing all right, man. Hanging in there.

Hanging in there. That's right. Good deal.

Good deal. I had a question about... You said that the version that you like is the NASB. Is that correct? No, I like the NASB. That's what I like, NASB.

NASB? Yes. Okay.

So how can we, to be respectful, of course, if the new King James has some issues with it, how can we trust the other versions? Well, it's an issue of understanding a few variables. So I'm going to give you an example of something. In Spanish, to say, I'm hungry, you say, I'm hungry. And what it literally is is, I have hunger. All right, so how do we want to translate that?

Do you want to translate it literally? It would be, I have hunger. But you might as well just say, I have hunger. But then you could get a little bit looser and just say, I'm hungry.

Now, if you're in Southern California, in the surf stuff, back in the 70s and 80s, it was, I'm craving grinds. And so each one of those conveys the truth, but for a different ear and for a different purpose. In the Old Testament, for example, when God would be angry, one of the phrases that would be used in the Hebrew is, he would clear his nostrils at you, because that was an idiom for anger. Well, that wouldn't make sense to us. So they translated it as God is angry. And that makes sense, because that's what the idiom is.

I remember back in seminary, there was an interesting dilemma that a linguist came in and spoke, a linguist had to deal with. And it was dealing with the translation of build your house on the rock, not in the sand, because you're supposed to build it on the rock, right? Well, there was a culture they were translating the Bible into, where if you did that, the floods would sweep your house away. Because if you built on the rock, the rocks were flat, these long flat rocks. The river would rise and just sweep you away, because you had nothing to anchor to. So they would go build their houses on the sand by taking bamboo poles and drilling them down in the sand eight, ten feet.

Build their houses that way, that way they're secure. So what do you do when you're translating? Do you translate it literally, or do you translate it for the meaning? What they decided to do was translate it for the meaning, and then put a note explaining the original, what was going on and why, so that people understood what was going on. So the NIV, for example, is more like that, where the NASB is more like build it on the rock.

The NIV would be build it on the sand. So where they're trying to get the meaning across, but the NASB wants the meaning as well as the literalness as possible, where the ESV is a step towards the NIV in that looseness. And they're all fine. Now the King James version, I don't recommend people study out of it. And the reason is because it was translated with 5th century documents. And since the King James has been translated, we found even older manuscripts, and the older ones are just universally considered to be more accurate or better. So the newer translations have newer understanding and more precise understanding of certain Greek constructions, which the NASB, I mean the King James messes up in Titus 2.13, the Granville Sharp rule generally supplied there, and I can get into that some other time. And so the NASB doesn't make a mistake there, nor does the ESV.

So the King James is good, but it has anachronisms, it has other kinds of stuff, and yet it's cool sounding, but we don't talk with these thou's now. So you see, it depends on what your goal is. Me, I want as literal as possible.

That's the NASB. And if someone doesn't want the literal as possible, the ESV is pretty stinking good. Okay? Wow, I wasn't expecting all that, but as usual, you go above and beyond. I appreciate that. I will probably call back in line if there's a break coming up. Okay. Yeah, we got a break coming up.

Call back, buddy. Okay? All right, man. All right. Thank you, sir. Bye.

Okay, God bless. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages. 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone, welcome back to the show. Let's get on with Elijah from Pennsylvania. Elijah, welcome.

You're on the air. Hey, Matt. My question today is out of Leviticus 25, 39, and 40. And the reason I bring this up is because I saw a debate, I think, a couple of weeks ago.

I think it was between Matt Dillahunty and somebody else. And you had answered my slavery in the Bible questions before, but this is a new argument that I saw come up when I watched that debate. It says, if any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you.

They are to work for you until the year of Jubilee. So the argument that Matt Dillahunty brought forth is that, and his response was that Christians say that there's a difference between the slaves in the Old Testament and the slaves of the 1800s. So he said, if that's the case, then why does it make a difference between slave labor and hired workers here because the Bible says that you can sell yourself as a hired worker itself. And here it's saying that the fellow Israelites are not to work as slaves, but they're to work as hired workers.

So his argument is that foreigners are treated as slaves, but the Israelites are treated as hired workers and they sell themselves to you, so what would be your response? Well, first of all, Dillahunty doesn't know the issue, biblical slavery and the issues. So I have a section on it on Carm and you can go read on it, but slavery in the Old Testament is not like it was in the 1800s in what's called chattel slavery, where the person was actually owned as a person. In the Old Testament, slavery, there's no real word that is the same as what we have in English.

There's like four or five different words for slavery and there's different kinds. And so what he's talking about here is why is it that there's a difference between the countrymen and non-countrymen and the reasons explained in the next few verses. Verse 42, for they are my servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt. They are not to be sold as a slave sale. You shall not rule over them with severity, but you're to revere God.

And the reason is because Israel came out of Egypt. It's a type of salvation. The ultimate issue here is to understand that what, hold on, let me get my throat, hold on. The issue here is that it's a type of salvation that is represented in not being a slave, not being bound to sin, not being bound to the sin master, Egypt. They're brought out of it.

They're delivered. So don't treat them in such a way that is reminiscent of that. They can certainly go into self, it's called a bond slave, indentured servitude and various things like that. And so that's what the difference is and that's why they're treated differently because the people of Israel were a type of deliverance because it came out of Egypt, a type of deliverance by the Messiah, type Moses. And notice that they passed through the water and they were baptized into Moses. That's 1st Corinthians 10.

So the typological response here deals with the issue of redemption and this is why there's a difference between the non-Jew and the Jew as far as how they would be treated and to what level. Okay? Oh, okay.

All right. I do have one more question. Here's the thing about talking to the atheist and bringing up slavery.

I love doing that. And I say, what kind of slavery? Do you know what kinds there are in the Bible?

Have you researched it? Do you think it's the same thing as it was, 1800s chattel slavery? Because in the Old Testament, the slaves had rights. In fact, when a slave escaped, he was not to be returned to his master as was property. So how could they be property?

How could it be like that? And first of all, or second, I'll say to the atheist, I'll say, is slavery wrong? And they still, of course, it's wrong. I'll say, why? You're an atheist.

Who cares? If it's just whatever atheism says, if you want to say it is wrong ontologically, now you're assigning a moral value to an action that's universally applicable. How do you do that with your atheism?

And then, you know, they start backing themselves into a corner as they try to explain that. So anyway, there's lots of ways to respond to it, but there you go. Okay? Yeah. Okay.

I have, I have one more question. Um, sure. It's out of, it's out of that same, uh, chapter, um, we find a verse, uh, let's see here, uh, Leviticus 25, uh, 46, uh, so, so, so, so atheist will respond saying, if, if, uh, slavery in the Bible is not the same as modern slavery, then what about visitors would say, you may also pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you, to receive us a possession.

You can use them as permanent slaves, but in respect to your country, men, the sons of Israel, you should not rule with severity, uh, over them. And then, uh, I think the verse before, um, okay, no, that's not it. All right.

All right. So that's not important, but, but yeah, so, so verse 46 is the verse that they give. So, so how would you respond to them on that one? See, what is, uh, there's another, another way of looking at it that the scriptures talk about, don't have to the top of my head, where it says for he, the one who is in that position is his, the owner's money. And so the slave will use the generic term, but which is a lot of different, uh, like that is one of the words, and there's some other ones too, uh, and, uh, I think it's another one.

Anyway. So, um, it's like the money that is owed by the contract can be transferred to somebody else. And the way I liken it is, uh, sports players can have contracts and they they've signed in the dotted line and they're obligated to play for a certain team for however much money and however long.

Now this isn't a one for one comparison, but their contracts can be sold or transferred to somebody else and they can move from their team and another place. And it's that kind of thing that, that, uh, when I see is being in there and it says, but, but what's interesting is you can use them as permanent slaves and they can be there permanently and I'd have to read the, uh, the whole context to see what the condition was that it was an issue of permanence. Plus there's another issue, which you have to look into the issue of, of people captured in war. And a lot of times those people were permanent slaves and they, they still had rights that could own property. They could be, they were often considered members of the household. But when Israel would go in and battle, and this wasn't just Israel, it happened all over the Mediterranean area at the time, that a victorious nation would then take the members who were slaveable, take them into their country, separate them from different houses so they could not communicate and raise up an army to resist. They were used as a means of reparations for the battles and the cost of the battles. And a third thing is, this may sound odd, but it says it was merciful because if they were to be left in that country where there was a mayhem, robbery and starvation and famine, they would suffer even more.

I'm saying it's perfect, but that's what it is. Hold on, we'll get back to you right after these messages, please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276, here's Matt Slick. All right, and welcome back to the show, let's get back on with Elijah so we can kind of wrap it up. A lot of stuff there, Elijah, I hope that helped.

Yeah, that kind of helps out. I have a question though, would you be interested in doing a moderated discussion with Matt Delahunty on slavery and the Bible, because I think that would be pretty interesting to watch. Yeah, I think it would be interesting. It all depends on what level we want to get to, a moderated discussion. If he wants to say it's morally right or wrong, I'm going to attack him on his atheism. As a Christian, we can talk about an internal thing if he wants to do, let me explain some things. When discussing a topic, there's what's called an internal or an external critique. An internal critique is you go within that worldview and you examine it within that worldview to see if it's consistent, self-contradictory, etc. An external critique is you use something outside of that worldview to judge that worldview. That's what atheists do all the time, they use what's called an external critique. They will say that they are in privilege of knowing certain moral values because we have evolved blah, blah, blah, to be overly simplified. What they'll do then is impose those values upon the Bible and I'll say, what gives you the right to do that? It's called an external critique. I can do an external critique and say your atheism is false because the Bible says God exists so therefore all your arguments and your moral objections are meaningless.

He's going to have to stay, or he would, or anybody would, have to stay with what's called an internal critique. At that point, all it comes down to is me just answering questions of different issues and saying things like murdering a Jewish or non-Jewish slave was punishable by death, or both the Jews and the non-Jews, both the slaves and the non-slaves, were under the same laws. Both could be beaten, the non-slaves as well as the slaves could be beaten.

Both were to be set free, Jewish slaves as well as non-Jewish slaves would be set free if they were injured. All kinds of stuff like this, it's not the same thing. You know, people may want to complain, we don't like it, well, okay, you don't like it. I'm not saying it's the best system, but that's what it was.

And there were rules set up to, I'm going to say, dignify it, but to make it less severe. I have a question, because, all right, so the discussion, it will most likely be titled does the Bible condone slavery, because I think that's the title of most of his slavery debates. But my question is, how would you respond to him if he asked you this, because he asks everybody this question during his slavery debates. He asks, how come God can say do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not eat shellfish, do not eat pork, but he can't say thou shalt not own another human being as property.

How would you respond to him if he asked you that question of why God did not give that commandment? Yeah, he's mistaken, because property is to be returned if it's lost. And the Bible tells us that slaves, when they would escape their bad masters, were not to be returned.

So they're not property. So he's not understanding the biblical position, which is very often the case. So I would just tell him, look, that's not what the position is, that's not the Christian or the biblical position. And why did God condone, and he did, he condoned slavery. But he didn't condone it as a proper moral thing. He condoned it as, this is the reality, we'll work with it. And so he put limits on it. That's what God did. And then another question is, why didn't Jesus condemn it?

Well, Jesus didn't come here to condemn any political system, because it was a political system. Slaves were very, very prominent, and it was actually considered, in some areas, a respectable position to be in. And then it was called duloi, slaves that would voluntarily stay with their masters' household for the rest of their lives, because they loved them for their family. And the slaves were often considered very valuable members of the household. So it's just not the same thing.

Chattel slavery is not the case in the Old Testament. It's not there. So it often comes under the issue of clarifying terms and issues. And I say to atheists, when I debate them impromptu or formally, I routinely will say, whatever particular topic it is, I say, look, I'd be willing to teach you what the Christian perspective really is on this, not what you think it is. Are you interested? And they never take me up on it.

Nobody ever does. It's interesting. So that would be the same thing it would offer here. I have a lot of notes on it. I have a very small file, 14 pages of notes on slavery, which I could double easily. Okay.

Yeah. I think I might check out your articles on slavery, so it's like starting up the defensive positions against the atheist arguments against it. And even if God says, yeah, you shall have slaves, you shall have this, say to the atheist, yeah, what's wrong with that?

I'm not saying I approve of it, I'm just saying, what's wrong with it? What's the moral thing you're going to stand on to say it's not correct? Because the problem is if they say it's universally morally wrong, then they're saying that there's a universal moral obligation. That's a transcendental moral. How do you have that in atheism?

You can't. So they're being inconsistent with their worldview. And what they're doing is adopting a theistic worldview in order to argue against another theistic worldview while they deny theism.

They're incredibly inconsistent. And I point this out to them when we're having our discussions, their inconsistency. And then after I've done that, I go in and address certain things particularly. Okay. Okay. All right. Thanks for your help.

I really, really appreciate your breakdown of scripture. All right, man. Well, God bless, buddy. All right, we'll see you.

All right. Now let's get to Mandy from North Carolina. Mandy, welcome. You're on the air. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Yes, I can. Well, I have been so eager to speak with you. I do have a little anxiety when I talk publicly, so just bear with me.

It feels like I'm waiting in line for the world's longest rollercoaster. I thought it was ironic how you started your program talking about the Antichrist, because this has been something I've been reading about for the last few days. My husband and I listened to the Remnant Radio's podcast, and they were talking about, like a hypothetical. See, I don't know, because the more that I read scripture about it, I really was a pre-tribulation rapture. That's just because that's what my church taught, but as I have been reading more and more into it, I'm not really conflicted, but I am leaning more heavily towards there not being a rapture at all. Like, it just doesn't make any sense to me the more that I read, and when I go into the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 and 25, when he's talking to the disciples and they ask him, what are the signs of their coming and the end of the age, I think it stands out to me in verse 15, where he says, then ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation. And it's almost like he's speaking to us, because I'm reading out of KJV, and it has parentheses that says, whoso readeth, let him understand, and it says that twice.

And it's just very compelling, because it feels like, it seems like he's speaking to believers that we are going to see the abomination of desolation. And there's just like, right, so I just, I guess my question is, I know Christians have different interpretations, and I guess I just, like, if you believe that the Lord is like putting it on your heart, that there's not going to be a rapture, like it just doesn't make any sense to you, how would you... Let's talk about that. Let's talk about that. Let's define what the rapture is for. Yeah, well, I want to talk about that. I guess I don't have a specific question, I just want to kind of have some, like, discourse on it.

That's okay. Let's define what the rapture is, okay? Let's define it. So it's the... Yeah. Would you agree, it's Jesus comes back when it occurs, and people are changed in their bodies, resurrected bodies, happens very quickly, and they go up into the air to meet him there. It's called the rapture, right? Right.

That's what it is. Okay. Yes. There's a little break coming up here, so I'll start, but let me do this. This is 1 Corinthians 15, and it says, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet, for the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised imperishable and will be changed.

Well, that's 1 Corinthians 15, 52, so we're going to come back to that, then I'm going to read something out of 1 Thessalonians, then we'll talk about it, okay? Okay, great. All right. Well, hold on.

Hey, folks. We'll be right back after these messages, please. Stay tuned. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right. Welcome back to the show. Let's get back on with Mandy. Are you still there? Hi.

I'm here. Okay. Let's read 1 Corinthians 15, 52 again, and then we're going to go someplace else. I'll show you something, okay? So, it says that, in a moment, I hear some clicking and tapping in the background there. I don't know if that is. Oh, sorry. I'm looking at the Bible on my phone, but in my car.

Okay. So, in 1 Corinthians 15, 52, it says, in the moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet, the last trumpet, the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised, imperishable will be changed. Now, let's go to 1 Thessalonians 4, starting at verse 16. It says, for the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, and the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God. Then the dead in Christ will rise first. So, remember, 1 Corinthians 15, 52, said, the last trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised, imperishable. That's the dead in Christ, those who have died in faith, okay? The trumpet of God, the dead in Christ, will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. But we shall always be with the Lord. Doesn't that sound like the rapture?

No, yeah. See, I'm not saying that that's not going to happen. Like that, like, it's pretty clear that we will be, like, lifted up, but I don't think... But that's the rapture. The rapture is the last trumpet, Christ returns, we're caught up, we're resurrected, caught up to meet him in the air. That's exactly what the rapture is, and there it is. Right. But I guess it's just like, when?

You know what I mean? But it's like, also significant to me, I just don't know if maybe you can clarify what it says, the last trumpet. The last trumpet from, like, what he's saying in Revelation, with, you know, the last trumpet is mentioned. The last trumpet is when the resurrection occurs. That in Christ shall rise first. That's the resurrection.

Right? That's what it says. So Matthew 24, it says, so, you know, all these things will be torn down, Jesus says. What's the... And he said, tell us, when will these things happen?

What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age? And so he starts telling people, false prophets will arise, things will get really bad, et cetera, et cetera. Then he says, but immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be dark and the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky, the powers of the heavens will be shaken, and then the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes and the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of the sky, because that's what's prophesied in Acts, chapter 1, verses 9 through 11, when he rises up in the air and the clouds take him away. And the angels tell the guys there, he's going to come back the same way, from the clouds. Okay?

Yeah. And so that's what it says, in 1 Thessalonians 4, 16, he'll descend from heaven. Well, that's where the clouds are, okay? So back to Matthew 24, and heavens will be shaken, the Son of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes and the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds, right? And he will send forth his angels with a great trumpet, and will gather together his elect and the four winds with a great trumpet. That's the gathering, that's the election, that's the rapture, because they're gathered at the trumpet. But that is, according to 1 Corinthians 15, 52, that's the last trumpet. So we have to go through the tribulation.

Furthermore, to make it even worse, I teach what's called depressed-cathology, after you're done listening to my stuff, you're depressed. We're going to go through it, it's going to be bad. And so Jesus gives the parable in Matthew 13, of the wheat and the tares. And they say, let's tear up the tares. He says, verse 30, allow both to go together till the harvest, in the time of the harvest I'll say to the reapers, first, gather the tares, and find them in bundles.

So you've heard this two men in a field and one is taken, one is left, right? You've heard about that, right? Yes. That's the rapture. It's not the rapture. If you read the context, it's the wicked who are taken.

That's what that is. Right. I have read, because in the verse, I think it's before that, where he says, such is the day as Noah was.

Right. The wicked were taken. The day as the coming of the Son of Man.

Yep. Well, check this out back to Matthew 13 really fast, because Jesus interprets the parable he gave. He says, verse 40, so just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age, the Son of Man will send forth his angels and they'll gather out of his kingdom all stumbling blocks. But, oops, because the kingdom has to have the bad people in it. And Jesus says, when he comes back, which is at the end of the age, the first ones taken are the wicked. Matthew 24, Luke 17, two men in the field, one is taken, one is left. That's the wicked who were taken. And so it looks like we're going to go through all of it, and the wicked are going to be here, and he's going to take out of his kingdom the wicked. And there's more I can go on about this.

Right. I'm trying to find it where it says, like, even so, the elect could be deceived, because I felt like that really stood out to me. And I guess my question, or like, I guess it's a question, let me just try to phrase it as best as I can, so many Christians, and I've read that it's more of like a Western kind of idea. No, I know, but I guess what I'm trying to say is like, if so many of your friends, your church members believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, that they're not going to be going through it, how would you, what do you do with this information? Because I've honestly, the last few days, it's really been on my heart, and I believe so, you know, we will be going through the tribulation, and that's why we are told to be watchful, and be careful, and to be sober, and be vigilant, and to not be deceived, because, you know, one day, what if that day comes where, like, you know, it starts, and, you know, people are going to go like, well, why didn't you do the rapture, you know, like, why wouldn't you take it, we're not expecting this. Right, it's a great problem, and this basically started with the Schofield Reference Bible, back in the early 1900s and stuff, and the pre-trib rapture view is a relatively new view, and it took hold in America, and it's a very convenient doctrine, because it fits into the American lifestyle. We are comfortable, war doesn't touch us, we escape it, you're not in our land, but others outside, and so it's a general idea, but I absolutely deny that the pre-trib rapture is true, and I'm willing to discuss it with people, but I have arguments that I've not seen them be able to address and get out of, you know, in particular, Matthew 24, it says after the tribulation, that's when they're going to be gathered, and the gathering, according to 1 Corinthians 15 and 52, is the last trumpet, and the last trumpet is when the rapture occurs, and then the gathering, and the wicked are gathered first, and that really blows people away, and they say, no, that must be in the millennium kingdom, but it isn't, because it happens at the end of the age, there's only two ages, and that's what most people don't know. That's what people don't know, is there's two ages, that's the... In the KJV that I'm reading off of right now, it says the end of the world, but in my husband's interlinear Bible, it says end of the age. Right, it's the end of the age, it's aionios is the word, not kosvos, but it's aionios, so it's age, end of the age, you'd be better off studying the stuff without the King James, you'd be better off with an ASV or an ESV. Right, yeah, I heard you talking about that, I don't want to get off topic too much, but I've always wondered, because me and my husband, we've been saved only five years now, and we've only been to the same one church, and when we got there, it was very like, we do KJV, and this is what we believe, and you know, it's already, it's sounding bad, it's sounding bad, when people are grouped for King James only, there's usually some other stuff attached to it that's not healthy, and they can use the King James, that's fine, but if it's King James only, if they say it's the only true Bible, etc., if they say that, that's very bad, you need to get out of there, okay.

Well no, they never said like, that's the only one, they just kind of said that's the one that they use. Okay, that's fine, that's fine. But yeah, what was I going to say? I'll tell you what, we have calls waiting, callers waiting, but if you want, you go to CARM. What would you do, like how do you not process this information, because like, you know, I believe that the Lord is in control, and like, I'm not going to be fearful, and I'm just going to, you know, trust in him and just follow him and be vigilant, but I guess like, how would you bring this up, like if you felt led, you bring this up to your church leaders, like what would you suggest?

You first gather information that you can present to them, and go to my website and look up the two ages model, and it'll give you a lot of information that you can bring up, and you can say, hey, what about this, and I'd be willing to have a discussion with them, they'll never do it, but I'd be willing to discuss it and show them like, pre-trib can't work, it doesn't work out of scripture, but we've got other callers, I want to get to them before the... Okay, thank you, take your time. You're welcome so much, God bless. All right. All right, man, we've got some calls, look at this, comment on slavery, we can't get to that one yet, second coming, can't get to that one, Alex has been waiting, I think he's going to set a record here, 45 minutes, but it's okay because it's just Alex. Hey, buddy. Why did I even call in today? Because you can get insulted, that's why, because you like it. You know, those callers are more important than me, I was just going to talk about Catholics, you know?

I know they are most important, but you waited a long time, so, you know, so what do you got, what's up, man? Man, we got like two minutes, I'm going to jump on the Zoom, but two minutes, so explain really quickly why we cannot refer to Mary as the mother of God. Because the Bible doesn't refer to her as the mother of God, it does refer to her as the mother of, she says, the mother of my Lord, and that's how we should refer to her. Because there's a difference between saying that Mary's the mother of the Lord Jesus, the deliverer, the Christ, versus the mother of God. Because when you say the mother of God, alright, then she becomes deified and she's a functional goddess in Catholicism, the great idolatry of the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. And this is part and parcel of the problematic, the mother of God, and stuff like that.

We shouldn't call her that, okay? Yeah, I'm going back and forth with some guys online right now, and the ecumenicalism is such a danger today, and then on top of it, the Catholic Church in general is recruiting more, and even some politicians are saying that you should do that. Come to the after show, and we're going to talk because I want to do stuff to undermine as much of that heresy as I can. Okay? We've got to go, buddy. Talk to you later, man. Okay. Sorry about that, Tyler. I want to hear what you have to say tomorrow. May the Lord bless you all, and I'll be back on by God's grace tomorrow. Talk to you then. Bye-bye.