Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created in 2007-2276.

Also on YouTube, karmorg, C-A-R-M-O-R-G, one word. So we're on a bunch of different things. You can, I think you can just find us on karm.org forward slash social media, and you'll find it. All right. And matching funds donation for the month of December. So if you were to support us, which we're hoping you will do, then whatever you donate this month will be doubled. So if you donate five, it'll become 10.

Real simple. We do ask that you set up a monthly donation of, say, $5 or $10 a month. We don't need a lot, but we just need enough. And if that sounds good to you, if you want to do something like that in order to help us out, that would be greatly appreciated.

So if you were to do, for example, $5 a month for newbies, if you start off new doing that, then that's $60 for the coming year, and that gets doubled. That's how we've worked it out. So there you go.

All right. We can also, if you're interested, you can send me an email at info at karm.org, info at karm.org. And I would check it out. You can send an email there. Just put comment, radio question, and we get to them.

In fact, I'm looking at radio questions. We've got a few in there so we can get to it. Easy. See? Easy.

All right. Let's get to Chuck from Dayton, Ohio. Chuck, welcome.

You're on the air. Hi. Yeah, I was calling to ask, what do you think about the legacy standard Bible? It's pretty good. Oh, excuse me. It's good. I like it. Let me verify.

Man, something got a cough. I want to verify something and make sure it's the one I'm thinking of. But yes, it is. If I switch from the NESB, it'll be to the legacy. And the reason is because it includes the word Lord as Yahweh.

So if I were to go to, for example, Genesis 19.24, and it says there, it says Yahweh rained on top of Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven. I love that. So that's one. I mean, I'm not used to the NESB, but man, I'm like, you know, I could see going over that one, the legacy. It's the NESB, and even better is what it comes down to. How about that?

OK. Are you there? OK. All right. Yeah, also, doesn't it seem like some of the other, just in general, that it's easy to read? Oh, yeah, it's like the NESB. See, the NESB is a little wooden, but it's perfectly legible. It's just the translators try to stay true to the original text, the original meaning, as much as possible. And it's a little wooden in some places. But it's still quite legible. It's not as smoothed out as a looser translation might be.

But I use the NESB a lot, every day, and I have for decades. OK? All right? Uh-huh. OK. Yeah, thank you. You're welcome. All right, well, good stuff. All right, then. All right, let's get to Jermaine from California. Jermaine, welcome. You're on the air.

Oh, hi, Matt. Yeah, so I had a question about killing versus murder, and I know there's a difference, but does the Bible really specify when and when not a war situation is arising? And I ask this because I've seen family members, other people who are there in combat situations, and some people I've heard give their depictions of wars, it's like in other situations they'd be classified as like serial killers. But I know that's not the case. It is a war. But I've never really done a study on what's exactly allowed and whatnot.

But what would you say about that? All right, so killing is not always murder, but all murder is killing. Murder's the unlawful taking of life. Killing is just killing, and it can be of different kinds, but it can also be unlawful. Killing is lawful, but murder is unlawful. So all murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.

So if someone comes into my house, for example, and is about to take a bat to my wife, and I shoot that individual, that's not murder. That's self-defense, and it's the defense of others. That's justified. Not that I ever wanted that to happen.

I certainly don't. But that's justified. If someone is threatening to kill me, for example, in my house, and they're coming out with a knife, and I shoot them and kill that person, then that's justified. Now, if I don't like the person's shirt, because maybe I'm a wacko Democrat who doesn't like Trump and wants to kill somebody like some of these ladies have talked about using poison to kill men who voted for Trump. Well, that's ill intent, not lawful. And it's murder if they carry that out.

And so that's just one of the distinguishing marks. Now, we get into the issue of self-defense. So let's just look at it this way. Let's use our house as an example. We have an invading force coming into our house. We have the right of self-defense to do what's necessary to stop an invading force.

It could be one person, 10 people in our house. And that's in order to protect ourselves, our property, and those in the house under our care. So we could extend that to war.

If someone was invading the United States with intent to destroy, to kill, to take over, we have that right then to defend ourselves and kill people in the process. And it's not that we want to do it willy-nilly, and hey, I don't like you, and it'll kill you. We don't want to do that.

It has to be done with proper ethics. Now, listen to our neighbor's house. Our neighbor's having a fight over there.

Now, what do we do? We hear yelling. There's a disturbance over there. And if they're just yelling, we hear them every night yelling.

Well, that's just the way it goes. But what if you hear someone say, put that gun away in the middle of a fight? Now it's a different situation.

So now there are different rules, different things you do. You call the cops. I mean, come on, call the cops. But let's just say then that one woman there is screaming for help. And you get your gun, and you go over and knock on the door.

And she comes running out, and the guy points a gun at you, and you shoot him. Now, what you've done then is gone into some other situation, and it's justified if he was going to kill you in that situation where you went to go help somebody else. Now, we extend that to war, and this seems to be a justifiable option for war. If there's a situation, we have a pact or an agreement with a party, a covenant with a party, treaty with a party, a nation. And then we have libeled our, not libeled, but we have covenanted ourselves into a situation to go in under certain conditions. And this is covenant work, and this is the same thing that was done in the Old Testament, the suzerain vassal treaty pattern of self-defense aiding others.

So, it's a biblical pattern, and so we can go in and, under a war situation, defend people and the interests of that party that may or may not affect us in certain ways. I guess it's more complicated than that, but we have that right. Now, what if there was another house down the street? I just want to go in there and just take over the house. There's no reason I'm not being threatened, my resources are not being threatened, nor in the house, my house is being threatened.

I just go over and do that. That's unjust. What if there's a nation, we want its resources.

Why? Because we just want its resources, and we go attack that. That's an unjust war. Then we, as Christians, can't participate in that war. We can't say, I will sign up and go attack that other nation that's done nothing wrong in any way, shape, or form.

We just want its resources. Then Christians are not to do that. So, I use the house analogy and neighbor's analogy to kind of go, oh, that makes sense, it makes sense. And then we extend it to the issue of wars between nations. Now, let's just say that whatever circumstance we're in a war with somebody, and we have the opportunity to capture someone alive, and we decide, nah, I just want to kill somebody because I want to kill somebody, and you shoot them.

That's not permitted, not in Christian thought, not in Christianity. The idea is to preserve life as much as possible. We want to shoot and destroy and break things only for the greater preservation.

And these are the kinds of things that we want to do. Remember the movie Sergeant York, he was a pacifist, and he ended up going to war, and he ended up shooting a lot of Germans. And the reason he did this was to save more lives, to stop them from hurting others. And so it was justified. So this is not just an easy situation, an easy thing, but there's a lot of variables and stuff, okay?

That help any? Yeah, and that helped a lot, and that was a great analogy. Can I ask a follow-up real quick? Sure, sure. So, and I get every situation's unique, and I know God's going to judge individually, that's what he's good at, but some of these people, like, say, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was in on an assassination attempt of Hitler, I never hear people say, oh, Dietrich was wrong. And in my own heart, it's like, yeah, I wouldn't, I can't find anything wrong, because this person was like a homicidal maniac. So would you say something like that could be, you know, justified in certain situations?

Yes. There is a sense in which you destroy a life to save lives, and sometimes it's necessary to do that. So, you know, and situations can vary, and one slight variable differentiation could make something right or wrong. And what if you had a time machine, and you go back to when Hitler was 12 years old, and you have the opportunity to kill him, should you do it? There's an innocent little boy, relatively speaking. You'd be killing an innocent boy for something you hadn't done, and if you kill him, there'd be no crime that he'd have committed.

So what justifies doing it? You see, the philosophy, the ethics, the logic becomes very problematic. There was a movie actually made along this line where some Nazi sympathizers after the war had gotten some genetics of Hitler and had impregnated women, and there were these children that were then born in different places of the world. They were causing the children to have the same situations to them that happened to Hitler as he was growing up.

And so at 12 years old, this happened to him, then they would do that, so that he was shaped, each one of them was shaped the same way. And then, I'll tell you what happened at the end of the movie because it was really interesting, and we'll talk about this stuff, there's a break, so hold on, I'll tell you what happened and then we can go on some more. Hey folks, be right back after these messages, please stay tuned. Welcome back to the show, Jermaine, are you still there?

Oh, yes I am. All right, well just to finish the thought from before the thing, in the movie they thwarted everything by simply stopping the people who were training the child that way, they stopped them all from doing it so the child would, each child would have its own life and wouldn't be Hitler anymore. It was just different. It was good. So anyway, this is, it's a tough question and there's just a lot of variables and Christians have written on this, which is a just war.

The best analogy is your house, your neighbor's house, neighbor's neighbor's house and things like this in different situations, that's a good analogy. Okay. Yeah, thank you for being willing to answer the tough questions, why I support the ministry, I appreciate it, I'm up there in the hot seat every day and I think it's interesting how some people would not, they would condemn those who were in combat but they don't have the condemnation towards the abortion industry, so it's very morally interesting. But thank you, appreciate you being here. You're welcome.

You're welcome. That reminds me, there was a few years ago when, I think it was Desert Storm, one of those, was there in Afghanistan and I don't know enough to know which category of appropriateness it was for our country to be involved with another nation in war. There were some variables I don't know about but that's not the issue. The issue is I remember talking to a guy who was a Marine and we'd known him for a while and he had a little PTSD but he was managing it pretty well and we just got talking one day because I never would ask him questions about being over there. None of my business. If he wants to tell me, he tells me. I never asked him if he killed anybody, hurt anybody, what he had to do. I just said, look, thank you for being over there and I just say thanks.

After about a year, we finally had a conversation and he thanked me for not asking him. He says, a lot of people just ask these dumb questions like this. He says, he does say, I'm going to kill you, kill this and I said, no, no, it's not like that. It's not easy and he said, you're right because my dad was in the service and I grew up with different military bases and heard conversations so I knew. You don't talk like that. But he did ask and he said if by chance he had been involved with killing anybody. He was just looking at me and he said, how would that be?

He says, I have a problem with it and I said, well, if it's the case that you did in a war situation, you're innocent as long as it wasn't a malicious intent, you had someone safe under your gun and you could tie him up and take him away as a prisoner and you just killed him anyway. Long story short, we went through it and it helped him a lot. There you go. Hey, if you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276, you can also email me info at karm.org, let's get to Tom from Florida.

Tom. Welcome. You're on the air.

Hello, Matt. Thank you for the great scale. Thank you for your commitment to the sola scriptura. Appreciate that. You just caused me to relax. Oh, good for you. All right.

I'm actually, I'm not calling to argue. I'm calling to get your perspective on a particular verse that is riddled with controversy with respect to the Armenian view versus the sovereign election view. And that is that you all know it's Romans 8 29. Those he got predestined is preceded by those he foreknew. And my question is about that word foreknew. And I know you have studied Greek and can you comment on the meaning of that word foreknew?

Is it active, et cetera? Thank you. All right. So yes, I know there's a controversy about this. There's two main views, and then I'm going to show you something.

I'll give you my opinion. So he foreknew the Armenians will generally say that God knows what you're going to choose in the future and he predestines you because of that. That's a loose thing. So it would be translated like this then. Those who foreknew, he looked into the future to see who'd pick him and he predestined them because he knows what they're going to do. But that wouldn't mean that God had to learn and it would mean that God's choices are based on man's choices and that reduces the sovereignty of God. And in Armenianism in this sense, it exalts man and reduces God.

And that's of course the fault that shouldn't do that. On the other hand, the reform view says that they were known ahead of time and that they are the same group. For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined should not have the same group. It does not say of those whom he foreknew, some he predestined whom he knew would pick him. It says those who he foreknew, he also predestined. They're the same group. So what does this foreknowing mean?

Well, let me give you my opinion by going someplace else and then come back to here. Matthew 7, 22 and 23. Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, do we not prophesy in your name. In your name cast out demons and in your name perform many miracles. And I will declare to them, I never knew you.

Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness. Now the word to not know, I mean, I never knew you is ginosko, ginosko. The word foreknow in Romans 8, 29 is proginosko, just P-R-O in front of the same word. Now I'm going to go to Jeremiah 1, 5. Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you. Now that's a different Hebrew word for know, good as Hebrew, not Greek.

Interesting. Now let's go to Galatians 4, 8. However, at that time when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods, verse 9. But now that you've come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you have turned your back? Now that word there is that you're known by God, that's also the word ginosko, to know.

Foreknow is proginosko. But now that you've come to know God, or rather to be known by God, those who before knew he also predestined. Now I'm going to go to John 10, 27. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, ginosko, again. And they follow me, and I give eternal life to them.

Okay. What I believe, this is my opinion, on the day of judgment, if God says to you, I don't know you, that's really bad for us, in which we're going to hell. If he says, I know you, it means you're his sheep. Those who before knew, he also predestined. The ones he had known in a salvific way, beforehand he predestined. To become conformed to the image of his son, that he would be the first born among many brethren, and those who be predestined, past tense.

He also called, that's past tense, that word right there is called, is past tense, and it comes from the Greek kaleo, to call. And those who be called, past tense, he also justified, past tense, and those who be justified, he also glorified, past tense. Wait, how were we glorified? Now we could make the case that glorification's a future thing, it hasn't happened yet. So 1 Corinthians 15, 35 through 45, the glorification of the body, but if that's the case, why is it spoken of in the past tense? Because the foreknown ones are the predestined, called, and glorified. Because God doesn't make any mistakes in his decrees. And so when I look at this, I say the ones you foreknew means the ones he's known in a set saving way.

Those are also the ones you predestined to be saved. So hold on buddy, we've got a break, and I'll be right back and comment after the break. Okay, hold on. Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages. If you want, give me a call at 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.

If you want to give me a call, the number is 877-207-2276. All right, Tom, get back on buddy. Hey thanks, thanks for the explanation, please allow me to quickly contrast the two views and see if this is what you said. The Arminian view would interpret the word foreknown as, hey God knew about you and your behaviors and choices in the future. That might be an Arminian view. Yeah, more or less. The Pauline view, or the Pauline view here, associated with sovereign election, uses that word new to actually mean selected for or reserved for salvation.

Kind of. Okay. God, look at it, it's there, but there's more, see God is faithful through whom you're called into fellowship with his son Christ Jesus, 1 Corinthians 1.9. He desires to be among his people, and he said, build a tabernacle so I can dwell among my people, Exodus 25.8. Jesus says he lives in us, not with the Father, John 14.23. There's this relationship, this intimacy, foreknow. It deals with the knowing of God in that saving relationship that he's going to have with those who he's called and given to the son. And so it's what you said, but think also of a loving relationship that he's worked through Christ, so that you're known. Right.

Okay. And he would not have that with the nonbeliever, obviously. Correct. He says to the unbeliever, I never knew you, get away from me.

He never knew you nor foreknew you. Right, foreknown in that sense, right. In that sense, right.

He knew about, if you will, because he's God, but I'm with you, right. Right. Well, thank you. Now, a little bit more info. I'll let you... Give us more info on this, okay? Because the word foreknow, oh, I had it right here, where'd it go?

I did it during the break. The word progonoscope only occurs five times, or six times, excuse me, in the New Testament. In Acts 26.5, and this is how we find out what the word means.

We look at its semantic domain, its context. So in Acts 6.25, since they have known about me for a long time, that's what the, in verse four, it said, all Jews know my manner of life, youth of which the beginning was spent among your own nation of Jerusalem since then. You've known about me for a long time.

That's progonoscope. That's foreknow. But it's not used in that sense of a loving relationship, a God saving work, it's just how it's used. And you've known me.

But it's interesting that it's not annoying in the future, it's annoying in the present, in that context. And then Romans 8.29, the thing we've been looking at. And then in Romans 11.2, God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Or do you not know that the scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleased with God against Israel. So he's foreknown his people.

Interesting. And then in 1 Peter 1.20, he, let me get the previous verse, but with precious blood as of a lamb unblemished and spotless the blood of Christ. For he, that's Christ, was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared these last times for the sake of you. So now we see in that part of the word, there is certainly a relationship aspect of foreknown, but also causation is foreknown before the foundation of the world, but it's appeared in these last times. So that would be consistent with the ones who have foreknown who are predestined. And then the last verse is 2 Peter 3.17, and I'll read the previous verse for context. In all his letters Peter's saying about Paul's writings, speaking in them of these things in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort as they do the rest of the scriptures, Peter's calling Paul's writing scripture, the rest of the scriptures to their own destruction.

Peter 3.17, you therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you cannot carry it away. So here, now it means you can know beforehand something, and that's fine. So the word has a range of meanings.

So it's called a semantic domain, but we don't want to take the meaning of one place and transfer it to the meaning of another. And this is why Romans 8.29 is so critical when I say to them, the foreknown ones are also the predestined ones. So if it's foreknowing everybody that he predestined some, that would not fit, because it says those who be foreknew he also predestined, they're the same group. So the Armenian, or any position that would say that God knows who will pick him and all that, anything like that is simply not correct according to the scripture right there in Romans 8.29. Okay?

You're very good, thank you, the context and the use of foreknown or foreknew in Romans 8.29 is reserved for the saved, the elect. Yes. And that one, yes it is, because they're the same group. Yes.

Those who be foreknew also. Because the same group by that association and the way you express the tenses. Well thank you, I'll let you get to the next caller, appreciate everything you do. You're welcome. Have a good night. Alright, God bless. Bye bye.

Alright, alright. Now we have nobody waiting right now, if you want to call the number is 8772072276, okay. Today's Friday the 13th, why is it a bad number? Why is it a bad day? Why is it an unlucky day? Well my wife was born on Friday the 13th, which explains why she married me. But aside from stuff like that, why is it considered a bad day?

Well here's a potential reason, potential. Now there is something in scripture called gematria, and what it means is mathematical values of words. And so in Hebrew and in Greek, Old Testament's Hebrew, New Testament's Greek, when they wrote they only had one set of characters. They had one set that was both numbers and letters. That's for Greek and that's for Hebrew also.

So when they would do that, there was just one set, okay. So if you wrote a word, you're also writing a set of numbers. So the Greek word for fish, ikthos, has a mathematical value of 1224.

That's just information, okay. That means all the letters, which are also numbers, added up. Okay, well the reason I'm bringing this up is because it turns out, and I haven't verified this but I read it someplace, that whenever it talks about Satan in the Old Testament, the section of scripture, when you add up all the letters, divisible by 13 exactly. Interesting.

All right, well here's some more trivia. So during the Jewish calendar, let's just say 6 o'clock and then the non-Jewish calendar we're going to say at midnight, so 6 p.m. at midnight, we're just going to use those. But in the Jewish calendar, the day changed at sunset.

So sunset could be 5 o'clock, 6 o'clock, 7 o'clock, 8 o'clock, it depends on the time of the year. But just for the illustration, I'm going to say, let's say in this particular time it was at 6 p.m. That that's when it shifted from the 13th to the 14th, the day 13 now is the 14th. Well that would mean then that for other people, it's still the 14th. So at 3 hours after 6 p.m., 9 p.m., it's the following day for the Jews. But for the Egyptians, for example, it would still be the 13th. The 14th of Nisan is when the angel of death came over Israel and killed the Egyptians, the first born. But it was the 13th for the Egyptians.

So some think that it happened on that Friday the 13th for the Egyptians, a bad day, but it was the 14th of Nisan for the Jews, which would make sense, the Sabbath, the rest, Atonement, things like that. So that's one of the theories about that, okay? Hey, there you go. How about that?

Isn't that fun? Each year I talk about that. Let's get to Jeff from South Carolina. Jeff, welcome.

You're on the air. Good evening, Matt. I just had a, my mom's in the hospital, had her injured her hip the other day, and she's at Pineville, atrium Pineville, and I was reading the Bible a lot.

Okay. I was reading it, Matthew, I think it's 6, I'm on the road now, I can't read it, but about the eye being single, if the eyes heave open the whole body, single, and then I don't, I mean, I've read that a lot, and it always intrigued me, I couldn't quite, is it what you're looking at, or couldn't quite understand it? You mean, so Matthew 6, let me find the passage, okay? And so the lamp is, this is Matthew 6, 22, the lamp, the eye is the lamp of the body, so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. If your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness.

It's just, there's a word for it in linguistics, where one thing represents the whole. So if your eye, the thing you're seeing is bad, what you're viewing and what you're contemplating is evil stuff, and you're viewing it, participating in it, your whole body's gonna be affected, your whole soul, everything about it is affected. And if what you're doing is good, you're viewing those good things, then metaphorically, everything's gonna be good.

These are generic wisdom statements, is what they are, from Jesus. Okay. That's all that's going on, okay. So it's what you're looking at, you're entertaining yourself with, and things like that. That's right. So if you're looking at porn, you're looking at stuff like that, it'll fill your heart and your mind. It'll be dirty. Right.

And so that's why the Philippians, Philippians 4, 6 through 8, I think it is, says to, you know, whatever, in verse 8, focus on the good things, what's right, pure, and loving, and let your mind dwell on these things. Okay? We got a break. All right, buddy. Okay. Hope that helps. God bless. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right, Jeff.

God bless. Hey, folks, 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.

Welcome back to the show, the last segment of the hour. Just want to let you know that this month is a matching funds drive month. If you like what you hear and you want to continue to hear it, maybe you might want to consider supporting us.

We don't ask very much. Just maybe how about $5 a month, maybe $10 a month, and you can set it up easily. Just go to karm.org, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G, forward slash donate. And there you go.

That would be easy and set it up. Let's get to Archie from Virginia. Archie, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, what's up, Matt? Oh, not much. You can hear me okay? Yes. I hear you fine. Okay. Good. Good, man.

I work at a hospital. Anyways, one of my patients who's a Christian seems to have a really good relationship. But he came up with this crazy stance on the second coming, and he's got it all.

He's got an answer for everything that I said that Jesus has actually already come back to me, and the time, and he references the last three chapters of Revelation, that the time after the tribulation, I guess, when, and I'm not very well with the end times, but the understanding of the tribulation, and then after that, the devil's release for a short time. Is that right? Right. It's called preterism.

In the view that... In the view that... it's called preterism, that Jesus has already returned, preterism. And that we're actually the resurrected saints that are supposed to be reigning with him, I guess, but we don't know it because we're being deceived. Well, okay, so there's what's called amillennialism, premillennialism, postmillennialism. There's preterism, partial preterism.

There's dispensationalism. All these are eschatological. But let's just keep it simple for now. The preterist view says that Jesus returned in 70 A.D., so this is your Christian view. Yep, that's what he said too.

Yeah. That the waiter refuted is very simple, and all you've got to do, but if you work there you've got to be careful how you talk to patients and stuff, but you go to Acts 1, 9-11. Acts 1, 9-11.

And what you do is you camp out on this. This is what it says, and after he had said these things he was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received him out of their sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while he was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. They also said, men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky, or into the heavens? Ruinos in the Greek.

Ruinos, heavens. Why look into the sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come in just the same way as you watched him go into heaven. The angels prophesied he's going to come back in the cloud. So what you do is you just say to the preterist, that's what it says. And I've had preterists at that point say to me, you have to understand the context, Matt.

I say, okay, what's the context? The cloud of witnesses. And it's all about the symbolism that is meant in the return, because a cloud and a cloud of witnesses, and they just go, okay, just when they're done, and it says, but they said, but did, and I ask them, did Jesus ascend up into the sky here? And you have to say yes, because that's what happened. Did a cloud receive him out of the sight?

Yes. And do the angels say that's how he's going to come back? What are they going to say? What they have to do is just, they go off on a tangent, well, you see the word sky over here, over there, it means this. And then you do that.

You just wait. And I just go over the verse again, over these three verses. Let's go over it again. And I keep saying it to them, Acts 1, 9 through 11. Something that every eye will see that's in there somewhere, too, right? That's later.

I told them that. But also, what you can do, you can cross-reference it with 1 Thessalonians 4, 16, for the Lord himself will descend from heaven. And that's the same word as you look into the sky, all right? The same word in Greek. Sky is how it's translated in the NASB in Acts 1, 11, but it's the Greek word uranus, uranus, actually. And so that occurs also in 1 Thessalonians 4, 16. So the main word that has cognates is uranus, and it has cognates, it has forms in Greek.

But it's the same word. It's uranus, okay? So the Lord himself will descend from uranus, from heaven, with a shout of the voice of the archangel, the trumpet of God. The devil arrives. He'll be caught up together to meet him in the clouds where the Lord is. You say, wait a minute, doesn't even Paul teach he comes back in the clouds? And this is what the angel said in Acts 9 through 11. And you can go back and forth between these two verses if you want, two sections. And then, but you have to be careful, because if he's in the hospital, you don't want to keep him in there, because he can blow a gasket, okay? Yeah. Yeah. So, but he says that he did return that way, and that everyone knew it at that time.

And that there's like hospitals with thousands of rooms or whatever, and there's no bathrooms, no toilet. He's like, I forgot what he was trying to get at. But he says he's talking about that there's evidence that... What you do at this point... Everyone on earth at the time knew it. Yeah, he doesn't know what he's doing. Walk over to his IV bag and just check the solution.

Make sure he doesn't get too much painkillers, because it doesn't make any sense. This is a phenomena that occurs with people who just believe a certain something and they adjust everything to this one thing. And it just doesn't work. They say that he came back in 70 AD with the destruction of the Jerusalem by the armies of Rome. And that's how Jesus came back.

It's ridiculous. He knows it comes back in the clouds. So what I do when I talk to the preterists is I just go to Acts 1, 9, 11, I read it over and over and over and over again. Well, yes, but you see, let's go back to the verse.

They get upset with me. They do. But I say, but that's what it says. That's not what it says.

I mean, it's not hard, is it? Yeah. Okay. So that viewpoint, they say that again, and he came back as the Roman army, or with the Roman army?

Yes. You see, look, yes, because the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem. And I've been there and seen some of the stones that were thrown down, I've seen them on the ground.

It's really interesting. And so if you go to Matthew 24, it talks about great problems and toils, and this kind of language is used in the return of Christ. And so they'll say, yeah, there's wars, there's rumors of wars, and this is what happened in Jerusalem. But, you see, just like Jesus said, there were wars and rumors of wars. That's where he's going to come back. That's what they were doing back then. They go, yeah, but there's wars and rumors of wars all over the place. And he said, you come back from the clouds. I'd say, let's go to Acts 1, 9 to 11 again.

No, I don't want to go back there. And I say, why not? That's what it says.

And they get irritated because I just keep saying the same thing because it refutes preterism. It just does. Okay. Nice. Nice.

Yeah. Well, yeah, it just didn't feel right. I mean, I listened to him for like 10, 15 minutes and everything I said he had an explanation for, and I was just like, well, I mean, what does that mean that basically Jesus is lying to us now?

No, no, no. They would not say he's lying, that Jesus is lying. They're just saying that the interpretation is different. They're not accusing Jesus of any sin. So don't say that they think he's lying or that your position means lying. It's just how they interpret it. But they're wrong. And Acts 1, 9 to 11 demonstrates it.

I'm not kidding. I know a lot of stuff about this stuff, and that's where I go, Acts 1, 9 to 11, and sometimes I'll cross-reference it with 1 Thessalonians 4, 16, chapter 5, verse 2. And if I really want to have fun, I go to Matthew 24, and then I go to Matthew 13, and then I really have fun with them because they can't answer these kinds of things with review. But Acts 1, 9 to 11 is really where you want to go.

Just trust me. Acts 1, 9 to 11. Mm-hmm. Yeah, I got that one. And what was the first Thessalonians 1, 4, 16, with the voice of the archangel? Was that that verse? Yes, and the trumpet of God in verse 17, and they'll meet him in the air, in the clouds.

And I ask people, where are we going to meet him in the air with the clouds? Is that what it says? Yes. Is that what it means? No, it doesn't mean that. This was something else I'll do to people.

I did this a couple of days ago. Someone said, he's a Catholic, he said, man, it's just your private interpretation of something. It's all you're going with. And I said, no, I don't think I'm that intelligent.

Why do you ask? And he paused, and he went on with something else. And he says, well, it's your interpretation of things. We just don't believe interpretation. And I said, well, no, I'm not that good looking, but thank you for the thought.

And he was totally confused. And I said, look, if it's just a matter of interpretation, then I can make words say whatever I want, right? Isn't that what you're accusing me of? I can just make it up. But you can tell that it doesn't make sense to do that. When I say to your words, I just interpret them any way I want. Words have meanings in their context. We can understand what those contexts are.

And to step outside of the context and say something else is just ludicrous, as I was exemplifying. And that's it. So when they say you can interpret it different ways, say, well, you can interpret it different ways. But what does it say?

What does it say? Acts 1, 9-11. Okay.

Acts 1, 9-11. Over and over with the Preterists. Yeah. It destroys them. Nice.

Okay. And what does Preterist stand for? It doesn't stand for anything. What does that mean? It's the view that Jesus returned in 70 AD. It's called Preterism. And then they think we're the resurrected saints or something? I don't understand it.

I'll look into it more. So what would they think is, what are we waiting for? If he's already come back, then what's the next thing to happen? Well then... The new heavens and the new earth aren't here yet. He did say that much. Yes, because it holds with kind of a post-millennial view in that everything of Matthew 24 was fulfilled at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. And that new things will occur with the new heavens and the new earth made later on as Christianity takes over. Okay. And so, the battle of Armageddon, that's already happened too.

He said that it's... Sorry. Alright.

I'll have to look into it some more. I still don't understand, so what would be the next event to happen? Just hypothetically, if they were right, the Preterists were right, what do they think the next event to be is? It depends on the Preterist. But generally speaking, from what I understand about Preterism, there's going to be a future resurrection, a future new heavens and new earth. Some hold that I've understood, some hold that Jerusalem will rebuild the temple and other things are going to come with the Antichrist. But some say, no, the Antichrist was back then in the 60s and 70s.

So you have to just find out what that particular one holds to because there's variations within it. Okay? Yeah.

That's wild. Well, thanks, Matt, man. Love your program. Alright, man. You're awesome. Alright, man. I really appreciate it. God bless. God bless. Okay. Hey, folks. Perfect timing again.

So there's the music. We've got to go. We're going to see you, and by His grace, we'll be back on here on Monday. I hope you all have a great weekend and we'll see you Monday. God bless. We'll see you next time.