This broadcaster has 144 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
September 15, 2020 8:00 am
Good afternoon and welcome to the narrow path radio broadcast, Steve, Greg and were live for an hour each week. The afternoon we take your phone calls. If you have questions about the Bible of the Christian faith. We welcome you to calling bring those up for conversation. If you see things differently but also want to talk about that. You can call bring that up as well. The number to call is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 and we have quite a few calls waiting, but there is one line still open if you want to call.
Now I want to make this announcement before taking a look calls and that is it. We had a bit of confusion with a call on last Friday and it bothered me that I was on the weekend. We didn't have time for me to bring it up to correct it.
And yesterday because we get it.
Frankly, totally forgot that I remembered today and I don't want this to get back we had a caller on Friday and Lisa from Hillsboro, Oregon, and she called because her son had found a verse she said in the Bible that said something like you know lazy people sleep soundly or something like that and I didn't of course I do recommend that because it's not in a good translation. I was a paraphrase and it's a bad paraphrase, so I thought well that's not in the Bible and when she said they sleep soundly verse I thought she was referring to was in Ecclesiastes where it says the sleep of the laboring man is sweet, sleeping soundly. Sweet sleep that those things seem the same to me and it was the African off the air. We went looking for the verse.
She said that was in there and she wasn't looking at it at the time, but we found the verse probably the chief was talking about. That would be Proverbs 1915, which does not say that a lazy man sleep soundly, but it does say that in the new living translation, which of course is not a translation of all the new living translation is a paraphrase and that's why it got so far off and I didn't recognize the verse to say a lazy man sleeps soundly sound like is making a very positive statement in the Proverbs 1915 and the new living translation says lazy people sleep soundly but idleness leaves them hungry while you know why look it up in the actual Bible what it actually says is slothfulness casts one into a deep sleep and an idle person will suffer hunger because it cast somebody into deep sleep.
This is not telling us that that person sleep soundly sleeping soundly is a positive thing that was cast into deep sleep means there cast into deep stupor. It's like they're under a spell. The lazy person has lost his sensitivity.
He is in a stupor.
He's like sound asleep when he should be alert because idleness is bringing poverty upon them. So in other Proverbs.
It talks about if a man folds his hands to sleep and gives sleeps too much, then poverty will come upon him like an armed man in odes, poverty is likened to an attacker and demand sleep is unprepared, so it says laziness casts a person into deep sleep to cast him into sleep is not like him simply having a nice sleep is more like casting a spell over him. He is cast into a stupor by his own laziness he loses sensitivity to what's going on in the real world and therefore lays poverty comes upon him unawares so she was right in the sense that she was quoting the verse as her son had found in the new living translation and I will I Say no that's not in the Bible is not in the model because it isn't, but it is in that translation, which I'm not very familiar with how there's a reason I don't read the new living translation much because I'd rather read a Bible that actually says with Hebrew and Greek say and so I was familiar with the verse. As it stands in the translations I use, but not with him so I want to apologize to Lisa because I basically I think you're not remembering correctly but she what she was memory correctly. The diversion that her son was reading I was just unfamiliar that paraphrase certain misleading so anyway Lisa, if you're listening that's the answer that you really deserved to get the last Friday which I'm sorry I didn't give you because I didn't recognize the verse you are alluding to talk to David from Eugene, Oregon David, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling the book Hebrew chapter 1020, we deliberately keep on sinning after we received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for your whole expectation of judgment leaking fire that will consume the enemies of God. Now, after we have received the knowledge of truth is that talking about people who heard about Jesus, but chose not to believe and keep those who heard about Jesus expected him but didn't continue alike. Well I think he's tough but I believe the book of Hebrews is written to Jewish Christians at a time of whether suffering persecution and there's a number of references in the book to the persecution are going through now they're being persecuted by their fellow Jews. These are part probably Palestinian Christians is that there in Palestine during Israel and therefore there living in a Jewish society, but they become followers of Christ, which is very controversial, and many of them have been probably disowned by their families and so forth. So this is very difficult for them and they some of them were questioning whether they really can remain Christians or not.
With this kind of rejection they were suffering from the families and friends of the persecution and so there were some among them who were abandoning the Christian assemblies. I mean, in the very same chapter. Just a couple of verses earlier verse to see one virtually verse 25 kn.
Tells them not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is so he saying some people are now Jewish Christians are now forsaking the Christian assemblies and and going back to Judaism now in the mindset of a person who's a Jew but not a Christian. They know there such a thing as sin and they know they commits the law of Moses made it very clear that they commits sin and they needed to offer animal sacrifices for but they figured that as long as they did offer animal sacrifices, then if they send, that's no big deal they can sin and then they could go to the temple offer sacrifice of this is not the attitude of the Christian that it would be the attitude of a person who had been Jewish and had become a Christian, but was deciding that was too costly to remain a Christian and was going back to Judaism now going back to Judaism there going back to the Temple into the system where they thought their sins, they could live in sin, but they could cover that with animal sacrifice leasing that doesn't work, he says, for one thing, if you've come to the knowledge of the truth and he's assuming he's talking to Christians throughout this book, he assumes he started Christian Jews. He refers to them in chapter 3, verse one as holy brethren, and partakers of the heavenly calling us as readers so he's writing the holy brethren. Christians. But he says now you know the truth.
If you reject if you go back to life of sinning out, not mightily continuing to live in sin is rejecting Christ because when you become a Christian you repent of living in sin, it doesn't mean that a Christian, never sins, but a Christian does not live in sin if they are actually Christian because they have repented of that but this assignments on going back as it were renouncing their repentance going back to a life of sin, even though they have known the truth but they're doing so under pressure, persecution, and the figure was there's always the temple, there's always the sacrifices of the temple I can. I can go back and take care my sin problems there.
I don't have to stop sinning. I can just offer an animal for but he said there remains no sacrifice for sin. Now what he says there is a repeat of what he said earlier in the same chapter and verse 18 just go back eight verses he says now where there's remission of these amelioration of sins in the new covenant. There is no longer an offering for sin.
Now what what he saying is in the new covenant, Christ has atoned for sin once and for all. For his believers and there's no more offering for sin that God has any interest Jesus has brought an end to this. The temple sacrifices and all the Jews would still observe them. They were of no value says that as far as Dr. there isn't any offering for sin at the temple when Christ his satisfied the need for that once and for all. So he saying if you leave Christ and go back to the sacrifice of the devil. They're not really even there. As far as God is concerned, they don't exist. You don't have an alternative sacrifice for sin is not seen the sacrifice of Christ is somehow nullified.
Although if they abandon Christ. Of course they're not there not participating in the redemption of Christ as they don't have faith in him.
But the point is the point is if you're going back to the temple system. There doesn't remain in Nice any system there as far as God is concerned no sacrifices for sins exist anymore in that system so he's not not really talking to people like ourselves who not Jewish in word and even when if we backslide, we don't usually backslide into Judaism or we don't go to the temple and offer animal sacrifices we so he's talking to Jewish Christians who are backsliding into Judaism and hoping that the temple system is sacrifices will will do just because they won't be persecuted by the their Jewish families if they go back to that and they probably were Figley figure well, I mean yeah I think Jesus is right, but, but, hey, Moses was a prophet of God to this Jewish system is something Goddard answer why not want to go there instead because I will be persecuted there. That's what is taking place but is this what is what actually remains not the sacrificial system, but what remains is a fearful expectation of judgment that will fit and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Now this this book was written just shortly before Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. there are several references in the book to the nearness of the destruction of the temple and so he saying God to bring judgment on this temple, who can bring judgment on the city and it's not all that far off.
And yet if you go back into that system.
Your it's like you jumping off the lifeboat onto the sinking ship again because the system is going down.
So that's really saying okay you very much for that contact.
You have a great day. Thank you, David, okay I Don from Vancouver, Washington. Welcome to the neuropathic circling the question for you. We were talking about the incarnation of Christ. In study and scriptural evidence either way to know that Jesus was or was not all fully God when he was here before his resurrection and did he do anything that a disciple or a prophet couldn't have done what I'm asking basically is that we identify him as being fully God at time before resurrection, and I can take the software that's fine okay thank you very much. Call okay thanks a lot.
It's very common for Christians to say that Jesus was fully God and fully man and sometimes we go so far say 100% God and hundred percent man when we start talking like that you start to talk with sounds, like nonsense because there's not such a thing is 200%. You can't be hundred percent one thing and 100%. Another thing that isn't but that's just the way people talk so we can sound orthodoxy will make it very clear that they believe Jesus is nothing less then God and so II don't want to use terms. The Bible doesn't use both the Bible does say about Jesus is that he was God and that when he became man. He tabernacle with those who took on a tabernacle of human flesh. She became flesh and dwelt among us, and so were coming.
We could see Jesus Hollingsworth was fully God, but would be saying something the Bible doesn't really say we don't have to use the word fully.
We can just say he is God in the flesh because that's a biblical statement that's a statement about likely mix. He was manifested in the flesh it says in first 315 and so we have therefore an enigma kind of because if God is in the flesh. Is he still entirely God while he is at least partly/he's a mean he is taken on human nature out. I believe that Jesus is what God looks like.
When he takes on human nature. He is he would exist in the form of God, and he did not think it is likeness to God.
His equality with God. With God to be a thing to grasp. Instead he surrendered that and took on himself the form of a servant, and he became something that God isn't namely flesh and blood and human God is not human.
God doesn't have flesh and and and bones did as Jesus said at a later time. He became mortal, God is not mortal God can't die. But Jesus became immortal.
He became someone who could become exhausted and fall asleep. And yet God, it says of him. He never wearies he never gets he never slumbers or sleeps. Jesus didn't know everything that is here.
He said you know only my father and I don't know that. He said the Angels don't. I don't know that the father only knows that, so it's clear that when Jesus became man. When God became man, in the person of Jesus. He did so he didn't cease to be God, but he it's not like he subtracted God's but he added humanness, but in adding humanists that added which recite limitations that God does not have when he is not in human form.
Now, I believe, therefore, that Jesus is nothing less than God in the flesh. That's a statement that can be backed up with actual scriptural statements to say he's fully God and fully man is to perhaps introduce more confusion that already exists. I think it's when he was a he's fully God and fully man.
I think all or try to do is point out that they are not occultist or not. Jehovah's Witnesses are not Mormons and not something else. They are Orthodox Christians who have always said that everything but you know orthodoxy is one thing the Bible is another. And I just as soon stick with statements that the Bible makes and it does say in first Timothy three that he was manifested in the flesh.
It does say in John chapter 1 verse 14 that the word was made flesh and tabernacle with us so that's how I would understand it now because Jesus was God in the flesh that does not rule out God being elsewhere as well.
That is God, not in the flesh, and Jesus spoke of God that we spoke of his father is a semi-father is greater than what he means is I'm limited here in a human body had taken on human form, but I'm not the only thing there is of God. He said my father is in me and I'm in my father. And if you see me you see my father but but the point he's making is I think that God even when he becomes flesh doesn't cease to exist beyond that and I would compare it with the times in the Old Testament God took on a visible form, whether it's in the pillar of cloud or the pillar of fire with her to the burning bush or the man who wrestled with Jacob all night or other cases that we refer to as theophanies that God appeared even physically and visibly in a place locally. This is the manifest presence of God and yet God existed everywhere else in the universe. At the same time. It's like God isn't to unbegotten multitask. He can walk on the street and chew gum at the same time, he can be manifesting himself on earth in a certain place and still exist in the whole universe and so when Jesus spoke of his father being greater himself. I think you simply, God in his part of God. It's not manifested there at that very moment, but he himself was God manifest in that spot just like when people came to the tabernacle and the pillar of clubs of the Shekinah glory was there. While that was God there but you know other people on the other side of the world, God was paying attention to and sparrows that he was feeding and grass that he was calling and not a sparrow falling to the ground without his knowledge, God is everywhere, but he manifested in one place and one man when he took on human form. It's a mystery.
I mean, if someone wants me to make it less mysterious. I don't know that I can do that.
I don't know that it can be done but that is at least following the language the Bible uses rather than language. The Christian sometimes like to adopt all right. Let's talk next to Caesar from Burbank, California high seas are welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling Micah within the church. The way were keeping the gathering mass as we as we see but then again I just figure your opinion on it and nothing. Well before you go you talking on social distancing in the church meetings is that we are referring to or meeting at the center united the search and ability. I mean yeah the math and yeah okay yeah okay thank you. Under current thanks for your call.
I really appreciate you taking Caesar, but, well, should the church be observing these guidelines for social distancing of the lockdown and things like that. This is a hard thing to answer because on the one hand, if the church is supposed to be meeting one another, embracing one another. Being in close contact with each other because that's the normal thing for Christian fellowship and we are told, of course not to neglect Christian fellowship, then there should be no law of any land that we would observe that would prevent us from doing so. On the other hand, if we see it as a situation where you any of us might be infected and might affect other people and does some of his other people might have pre-existing conditions or might be older or might have something that would make it dangerous for them to be infected and we have to remember that like, more than 99/100 people who are infected don't die. And most important get sick, but you know the idea that you one person might die because we were careless has led many Christians to feel like we really should keep our distance rooster where the masks and so forth.
Now that's a hard call, because on the one hand, if there is reason to believe that it is dangerous to our brothers and sisters to meet together. I could see an argument made that out of love for them. We should not get together and or we should at least social distance or mass or whatever. On the other hand, adults, usually throughout history been allowed to take whatever risks they want to. If somebody is afraid of getting COBIT or afraid of dying of COBIT or have pre-existing conditions are very old and there's things I want to stay away while they can always stay away. There's a lot of people who are not at great risk.
People who are young and healthy are not at great risk for covert and that would be probably the majority of the people in the church so I don't really see why people who don't mind taking the risks can't do that it can just fellowship in a normal way and those who don't want to take the risk of a can just stay home, or they can go to church.
The way people do now in zoom or whatever.
Or they can social distance thing of the church and stay further away forever else, but I really don't know why the state feels that they had to be a nanny to us and tell us adults you know it's dangerous.
If you go around people because you or someone else might get sick. Yeah, but is not coming true all the time has not always been true since the world began, that if you go around people crowd you might catch something.
The real question is not whether you are taking a risk. The question is whether it's a risk it's worth taking or not. And in many cases, I feel like I'd be willing to take that risk.
I'm I'm an old person I'm in pretty good shape physically, but I'm not afraid to die either sums going to get you. I would rather have a normal life with my Christian brothers and sisters then have that interrupted for a year or more on the chance that maybe I would die well maybe I'll die anyway. Maybe for social justice and I get hit by truck and a lot of people in a die of other things besides COBIT this year and I might be one of them, who cares.
I expect to die sometime. And I also not very much fearful of the disease because I happen to know that the vast majority people who actually get infected don't even know they got infected and get sick. And then of those who do get sick.
Most of them don't die and you know so that's kind of like other diseases is not there certainly are date disease that are much more infectious and and and and have a higher death rate. For example, my children the truth is, if adults cannot be permitted to take whatever risks with their own lives that they want to take as long as not being suicidal. Then we better outlaw everything we could have a risk we better put padded walls in every huskers.
People sometimes fall and hit her head on the corner wall and maybe die bit might slip a bathtub. We better make put abrasive material on the shower floors of every house and up and make it illegal to shower without it would better make it illegal to going to end the street in a car because people get killed doing that well. Since when do adults need someone else to tell us what risk we can take and which ones we can't if it was not you. It's the other people but if the other people really take that risk, why should we live in fear of something that is as science has proven is not really as dangerous as they said it was going to be due. Remember when it first came out. They said 2.5 million people are going to die of the disease that hasn't happened and that was supposed in the United States hasn't come close to that between 100 and 200,000 witches less than 10% or 1% of what they thought it was good to be so it's much much less dangerous than they thought it was can be. And you know someone says well I don't think it's that dangerous sums or failure science denier.
I'm not a scientist, and I believe in science.
I don't believe all the political opinions of a scientist because there are scientists on both sides up all of the political spectrum. And there's also scientists on both sides of the COBIT risk thing you find just as good scientists saying that this is not really a big deal for most people in discovery dangerous. We shouldn't be locked down, and we should be masked and so forth. There's a lot of great scientists of the highest rank. They're saying that they're just not in the CDC are not that they're not the voice of the CDC and therefore the people who say it is dangerous, are not more qualified scientists than those who say it's not, so they just have the television coverage because television wants to cover this kind of story in and this kind of opinion. So I personally think I mean if churches opened up today and no one were master there's no social distancing.
I still I go I'm not afraid of any covert thing. In fact, a few months ago my wife and I did go to a church where no one had mass under certain regular church chairs without a distance between them. I think they meet every Sunday doing that is a big church from him. 300 people in or so and and I don't think have gotten sick from it so I'm you know, I guess I would. I'm not very sympathetic with the whole thing but on the other hand, I don't really want to go to jail unnecessarily. So I would wear a mask social distance to find a place where they're going be doing that vexes me to check your unconscious about that. I suppose I'll go take a break here and will be back in a little bit listings of the narrow path for another half hour coming up the narrow path is listener supported. If you'd like to go to our website. It's the narrow path.com you can find out there how you consume supporters I'll be back in 30 seconds.
Please stay tuned. Tell your family. Tell your friends tell everyone you know about the Bible radio show that has nothing to give you the narrow path with Grant when today's radio show in Denver go to your social media and send a link to the narrow path.com, one can find free time on your teaching blog article verse by verse teachings and archives of the narrow path radio shows and tell them to listen live right here on the radio. Thank you for sharing. Listener supported the narrow path.
Greg will go back to the narrow path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Greg and were live for another half hour taking calls. The lines are full so you won't be able to get on the air at this time but if you take the number down call it a few minutes, you may find a line has opened up the number is 844-484-5737 and for those in Arizona listing to us unaware of a lot of this is Arizona and in Texas. I just want to know where I'm coming that direction. At the end of this month. On the 29th. I'll be speaking in the Phoenix area.
Actually, Buckeye. But we have a lot of listeners in Phoenix. If you're interested you go to our website. The narrow path.com and see where that meeting is The 29th of this month and then the next day the 30th. We will be in Tucson now. The details of that meeting have not been fully nailed down so we don't have the details of it posted but we will, but if you're in Arizona listener and interested in coming up to one of our cabinets will be teaching. Feel free to look at our website. The narrow path.com and under the tablets is announcement to find whatever information is available about those meetings and those of you in Texas I to be in three of several different areas in Texas very early the first week of October. I'm going to be in Spring Branch which is in the general vicinity of San Antonio Ganga speak there couple of times Spring Branch branch, Texas. I'm gonna be speaking in Houston and also in chocolate Bayou which is in the Houston area. And then there's could be meeting in Dallas also. So if you're near San Antonio or or Dallas or Houston. We will be coming to you in the first week of October to your area.
You can find those also at the website when the posted. I think some of them are already so that's just for you in Arizona and Texas so you get a heads up were going to some other states to but will announce those as the meetings get closer to go to for my turn now to talk to Earl from Roseville, California hi Earl, welcome to the narrow path.
Thanks for calling. Hello. Story in Numbers number 22, 33, at about bail amendment donkey and the angel told him what I understand they limit writing his donkey any right into the angel of the Lord, which is a manifestation of God and then apparently will head to the right of Scripture that donkey saw the angel of the Lord first and then then bailment of donkey have some kind of conflict and in the doc you start talking to bail him. Bailment is sitting there clearly. After that donkey lie down on him and talk to the donkey like look like it the most normal thing in the world correctly from wrong, but been in that situation out. It jumped off of it and got away from that donkey as fast as I could, but not explained know you been abusing me and then bailment either opened up to the angel of the Lord and he said he admit that you send against God. But the angel of the Lord says in Numbers 2233 donkey saw me and turned aside from me these three times if she had not turned aside from me, surely I would also have killed you by by now and let her live. Okay, so why would the angel of the Lord have killed bail him because they disobeyed God some instruction that he was supposed to follow that.
Yeah, well that was not right with God.
The Bible says in the New Testament the bail and loved the wages of unrighteousness and the story about bail him is that they lack the kingdom for Moab wanted him to come and curse the Israelites. Baylon was not an Israelite. We don't know his ethnicity but he was a soothsayer and he had a reputation for being able to cursor bless people and nations, and apparently, for some reason people thought the that he had powers of matter, so this pagan king asked him to come and I curse Israel because the king was afraid of Israel and Baylon's and will let me ask God about it and he prayed God spoke to Moses don't don't don't curse Israel there. My people. You can't take curse them and so Baylon said I'm sorry I can't do it. God will let me answer the people left and then the king who wanted to hire sent the message back with more money offering a bigger fee and Baylon.
Instead of saying hey God already told me you know that I'm not supposed to do this letter to how much money you offer me I can't do it and he should sent them packing. But it says it will let me ask out again. Now it's obvious that he wasn't looking to find out what God wanted.
He Artie had that answer from God very clearly given to him previously. He's is hoping to get different answers open to is looking for permission to do what he wants to do because he wants to collect that fee and God realizing the insincerity of the man's heart. I think told him what he wanted to hear you okay go ahead and go with, you know. But don't think I am tell you to say so Baylon felt like he he was released to go but he shouldn't of felt that because God already made very clear. These people cannot be cursed there. My people so why is he still asking for permission to do it is more money involved, and so Baylon's heart was wrong.
Technically God had given him permission. The second time, but I believe it was, not sincerely think I think I was being sarcastic with him because he knew already the answer and so he went in disobedience to what he knew God's will was and it's interesting because he could say will God actually said go ahead but it's not the same legalism would say, well, technically the bottom are not violating what the Bible says, but if you already know what God wants and you're ignoring it and you do it for greedy reasons your heart strong you know and so that's why God was about to judge him for that, but he allowed him mercifully he allowed the donkey to see and speak, which I think you know you say what the dog is for Dragon I go running yeah probably would. But you might also be fascinated. You might be also think well never seen this kind of thing Before you might want to want to stay close by and see what's going to come out next. But anyway God told you the donkey saw me but you didn't which is a way of saying you know you're dumber than a donkey. You're more blind, the dark. Dark is more spiritually sensitive than you are. That's basically I think what God was telling him by letting the donkey have played the role that it did story bailment life while yeah it would seem so.
Okay okay okay alright good talking Earl thinks the button will write our next caller is Anthony from Danville, California Anthony, welcome to the narrow path for calling McCall to get your opinion on the debate between the received text and the majority yeah your right sure we have something like 8000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and most of them are, you know, agree with each other in in almost every way. I mean there's there's little to visual errors in copying and stuff that occurs in some of the manuscripts, but there's a pretty united testimony of the contents of the New Testament in most of these manuscripts, but most of these manuscripts are, you know, some centuries removed from the original writing. The assumption that is usually made is that because the old writings were copied over and over and over and over again that the longer period of copying and recopy recopy allows a larger number of mistakes to be made accidentally by people were copping and just make an error and these accumulate so that you 600 years thousand years later, you've got some considerable changes, sometimes in an ancient document. This actually hasn't happened in the case. The New Testament we know this because we can compare all these different transcription of each of them find out how little has changed. But there have been some little changes, but generally speaking, when you're trying to get to the original reading of an ancient document that you don't have the original anymore. The earliest copies are the ones that your to be hoping to find because they're closer to the time of the original writing and because there there has been less time therefore for multitudes of generations of copies to collect little errors and become off off base. Now there are a couple of manuscripts that are a couple or three centuries earlier than all the others that we have found and these would be what we call the Alexandrian text which revealed the code is Alexandra Mr. Curtis that can us there's only a few, very few of these and they are considerably earlier than the other manuscripts that are known of the thousands of others. So on the one hand we have a couple or three manuscripts that are within about three or 400 years of the time of the New Testament and then we got thousands of them that are considerably later. Now scholars usually think will the older ones are closer to the original survey to be more reliable and it is true that these older ones agree with each other in some important ways or they don't agree with the later manuscripts of the assumption of many scholars is these early manuscripts are the closest to the original.
And in the ways that they differ from the later manuscripts that's errors that have crept into the later manuscripts that the later manuscripts I have are wrong because they don't agree the earlier ones.
Now I want to say that the total number of differences in between the early and the later matrix is a very large number, but they're not of consequence. A lot of times the differences matter, the spelling of a word or the phrasing of a word or sentence the word order in a sentence. This is the kind of thing that went to service thousands of differences there are, but that this kind of thing that you thousands of them are of no consequence at all, but there are few things where the older measures differ from the later men scripts worked which are little significant.
For example the end of Mark the older manuscripts. The book of Mark ends that verse eight I believe it is and the later manuscripts have a variety of endings of Mark a medium length ending on a long ending our Bibles. That is our King James new King James and the Texas receptors of the received text as you mentioned, they they have the long ending of Mark so that verses nine through 20 in Mark 16 along to the Texas receptors but the older men scripts throughout Alexandrian text only have the first eight verses of that chapter so there's there's some difference there certainly there's also the passage like the one about the woman taken in adultery, in John chapter 8 actually the last verse of chapter 7 of John and the first several verses of chapter 8 things from 12 verse or so is the story of the woman taken in adultery.
Jesus said but him who is without sin cast the first stone. This story is not found in the oldest manuscripts, but it is found in the received text so you find that there are some some things out. But by the way, even if we didn't know which of these techs were correct. It wouldn't change any what the Christian faith there would be any difference in our beliefs based on the things it would certainly be nice to know if Jesus really did say he that is without sin cast the first stone at her. As the later men scripts have been sent, but was clearly ones don't be good be nice to know if some of those things in the long and the marker really what Jesus said about casting out demons in the drinking things poisonous and things like that.
What we may never know.
We may never know unless we find much earlier manuscript that that could be concern more reliable, but without knowing those things we don't have any problem knowing the doctrines of the Christian faith because none of the disputed passages between these two sets of manuscripts. The older and later none of the things that are in their better disputed awe have any real impact on any major doctrine of the Christian faith.
It may be one of our favorite verses or passages may be a disputed one. For example, first John 55758 where it says there are three that bear record in heaven. The father, the Word and Holy Spirit. These three are one is a very favorite Trinity passage, but it's not found in the older men scripts. It's only found in the later ones and so there's many scholars probably most assume that that verse is not really an original part of first John, but with or without that verse, I have no trouble discovering the Trinity and the rest the Bible. So what I'm saying is it's a shame I mean it's a shame we don't have the very originals and that we only have copies of copies of copies but the differences in the copies are not the kinds of differences that would deprive us of certainty about any major Christian doctrine so I don't worry about it much. The truth is, you can study out these passages and their merits and demerits separately. For example, the long ending of Mark. What's interesting is that some of the church fathers in the third century, which is before the time of our oldest found manuscripts okay before those measures are written or at least before the time that we have them from their church fathers like Irenaeus who actually quoted from the long ending of Mark, which means that even though it isn't in our oldest manuscript copies of the New Testament. It was in earlier copies of the new tenant, which Irenaeus used so you can actually kind of take these passages case-by-case. The story of the woman taken in adultery. For example, in the oldest men scripts is not found in John chapter 8, but in some manuscripts is found in other parts of the Bible.
Other parts of the New Testament in at least one or more manuscripts.
The same story Word for Word is found in Luke and and you know so the question is then okay. Did John write the story did Luke write the story who wrote the story or or was it added later on I got kind of put into different parts of the Bible there's there are some disputes about the things that they each each case can be studied separately and you can reach certain conclusions. Maybe not with certainty about them.
But once again, even if we never reach certainty about some of these things they they don't impact any particular doctrine of the Christian faith get the same Jesus, the same God. The same salvation the same kingdom of God in in all of these. All of these men scripts have the same Christian doctrines is just that on some things that aren't you the Christian doctors are not asserted, based on some passages and it's less clear than we'd like it to be as to whether they were in the original or not I wish it wasn't so.
But that's what we have persuaded Mike from Hillsboro, Oregon. Welcome to the neuropathic for calling. Here the word of my patience.
I will keep that our education which will upon the will supplied them that dwell on Revelation 310.
One of my favorite verses to prove the pretrip rapture when I believed out well you know what it is still there and it still is out in will still deal. You know me me me she had been wrestling with the risen thing ever since I came on and on. They just it's very difficult for me to say that the apostle John was written just when the road from the Isle of Patmos, which I believe he did in all 96 A.D. like the early church fathers, some of Denise Steve that is dangerous to your whole premise on have been had it been written in 68 dear 96 A.D. because there's such a world of difference in the whole scope of the book of revelations when you do that when I can't do that this this you just told me that you believe is right and 96 because church father said so I am not yet. I know one was written okay what it's dangerousness is dangerous for me to believe it was written before 70 A.D., but there were some early church authorities that thought it was written before 70 A.D., but I don't base it on what they say. I base it on the contents of the book itself, but because I I I want to get my information from the Scriptures, not from church fathers as much a vessel were doing right now. Let me know 96 ADD getting a 9060 getting you not getting the view. The view that was written 96 A.D. you're not getting that from the Scripture you're getting it from church father yeah right. Okay, anything is dangerous not to fall you in doing so on. You know I'm not don't I use were dating I thought you were talking verse your time.
There's couple of important things to say about it. Are you by the way, just out of curiosity, do you okay sure to say that this supports pretrip relation rapture will know what I'm saying is I'm not the great tribulation that the whole world.
Knoll God said the whole world not a big mistake here when he said the whole world. He meant the whole world not me, not just Jerusalem, Israel, the Roman Empire, if you want to put that in and say that it was a Roman Empire that's fine you can make that assumption is that I'm saying that the book of Revelation was written for the whole world for all the time that we're living in the people that were not yet even born. The four I think it is for our DNA is been all day and age it. I understand that there is going to be and I don't think it happened yet seen the great earthquake yet and neither of you, I don't think just jump in here and make some point. Okay, go ahead, you're basing this idea that it's about the about our times that the whole world. You say means the whole world as we know it, but let me just suggest that that's not the way the word world is used in the Bible. For example, in Luke chapter 1 is huge in Luke chapter 2 verse one it says it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. Now Caesar Augustus didn't intend to register the Mayan Indians or the aborigines in Australia. It means the Roman world. The Roman Empire is the whole world as far as they're concerned, and likewise in acts chapter 2 and verse five was target the day of Pentecost and how the Jews had come to worship in Jerusalem. It says now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.
While they were here from the Navajo nation you know that they went from the Incas nation. They were from all the nation all the nations in the Roman Empire, which is still as far as this. The concern is of the book in Colossians chapter 1 verse six, Paul tells his readers that the gospel has come to you as it has also in all the world is not about what you are are you know, it sounds to me is that you're saying when Revelation says there's a great time of testing. That's going to come on the whole world that that can't be something in the first century that has to be something larger, more expansive, I'm saying that in the New Testament. It's very common to speak of the Roman world as a whole world. That's just the way they spoke and of course Revelation was written to people living in the Roman world, specifically in Turkey at the time so this is the this is something we just have to agree to disagree about that. I want my reasons for believing what I do about Revelation are based on a holistic set of considerations. Both of not not specifically about the church father said, although I don't have a problem with what they said I I have their church fathers in my camp to but I don't really care what they thought about.
I want to look at what the passages it's say themselves and I want to do so in understanding the way that they were intended to be understood by the original readers who by the way were very familiar with the apocalyptic style of writing that that the book uses anyway. You know I do very much appreciate your call but I need to take summer calls were almost out of time.
But I, let me let me put you on just for one moment here and ask you this one question. Do you think there is something dangerous about about not being right about the book of Revelation I and you are not right. I truly don't. I just looking at things need the ability we have no set fire to the whole world and all that business we know what we know about that we know about that, even if we didn't have the book of Revelation that we do know my son just wondering. I just wanted is there something about our correct or more correct understanding of Revelation that would be important to our well-being. Spirits for me warning my children warning my grandchildren, warning anybody in talk to that we should be aware of what's going on around us and the book of Revelation is a very good morning, good night. I get on this day not unlike you, I would warn them and say you need to read this and take into consideration what going on in the world at all times in the world we live in right now as a warning that the well known would be that knowing as much as I have learned about church history is that there been dozens of times if not hundreds of times in church history when the people living at that time were quite sure the book of Revelation was addressing their own age. I agree with that and I were along with people warning light. Okay all is still an all-encompassing warning. Okay, I don't think you disagree with me on horns, and there it was written 68 year, 96 year whatever is still an all-encompassing warning and I'm saying that it's a warning for now as it always has been a God would do said to you know the people that read the last thing you did… I gotta go. I'm off the 45 seconds we see things differently about God and maybe some other things but I appreciate you calling to express your ideas.
There were out of time listening to the narrow path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Greg. We are listener supported.
If you'd like to help us pay the radio bills you can write to the narrow path PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 or you can donate from our website, where everything is free.
The website is the narrow path.com thanks for joining us. Let's talk again tomorrow –