Can you show me because we're going to use some hermeneutics.

Can you show me anywhere in the Old Testament where that word perpetual is not perpetual?

Because again, I understand you're appealing again.

Sure.

God's laws were any of God.

Hold on, hold on.

Wait a minute.

I thought I was going to get to have a talk here.

You asked a question.

Hang on a second, sir.

Be quiet.

No.

There you go.

I will mute you because it's not your show.

You ask the question, I'm going to give you the answer.

Genesis 6:4.

The word olam is used referring to those who were of old Deuteronomy.

I'll get just rattle off all the ones where it's used, not referring to perpetual.

Genesis 6:4, Deuteronomy 32:7, Joshua 24:2, 1st Samuel 27:8, Job 22:15, Psalm 24:24:7, 24:9, 25:6, 41, 13:77, 9:90, verse 2, 103, verse 17:106 verse 48:119 52:153 verse 3, Proverbs 8:23, Proverbs 22:28, Proverbs 23:10 and Ecclesiastes 1:10.

Should I go on for more?

Blah blah, blah blah blah.

This is Apologetics Live to answer your questions.

Your host from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rapam Board.

We are live Apologetics Live here to answer your most challenging questions that you have about God and the Bible.

We can answer any question that you have about God in the Bible and if you doubt that, just go to apologeticslive.com join us.

Just scroll down to the streamyard icon, the duck icon.

Click on that and we will be happy to answer your question.

If you ask a really hard question and I say I don't know, just remember I don't know is a perfectly good answer.

Now I had to play the intro there because well that was.

I forget his name like Sunday School Batman or something like that.

I forget.

But he was.

That was a clip from the last time that we had our guest R.L.

strohlberg that when he was on.

And that was a clip from there by the way.

I should mention I don't mention it enough.

But the intro song that you heard that introduces this program every week that also was provided by Mr.

Solberg.

So he will be coming on in a moment.

Let me bring in our co host here, Drew.

How are you sir?

Thanks for filling in last week.

I know you're going to be backstage because you got some Family responsibilities.

But I had to bring break out an old striving for eternity shirt.

I don't know if you, if you recognize this, but this is.

I used to always wear this with the cufflinks.

This is the Donald Trump signature shirts that he used to make.

He doesn't make them anymore.

But I figured in celebration of sanity in America, I would, I would break this out.

We have, you know, the Marxists have not succeeded.

So.

Yeah, but so, so that's the big news of.

In the news section is that Trump actually won by such a majority that Kamala Harris actually conceded.

It's amazing.

Not she, she conceded at like 8:00.

She just said, all right everyone, everyone go home, get some sleep.

Like, yeah, I think she saw the way it was going to go.

Well, her internal polling told her how it was going to go.

They were just, I guess hoping that they could pull it out with ballot stuffing.

But.

And they're succeeding in that for the Senate races and the.

In the House, but with, with ballot dumps.

But, but, yeah, so.

But I mean, you notice just miraculously there's 15 million, 20 million votes that are missing from 2020.

Like where did they go?

What happened?

Anybody who thought Joe Biden can get more votes than Barack Obama is delusional.

Right.

Okay.

I mean, just for the record.

So that is, that is an amazing thing.

In the news section, I was pleasantly surprised.

I went to bed assuming that I'd wake up in the morning and find out that Kamala won.

And instead I found out no, they.

It was a.

I mean he had over 300 electoral ballot.

Yep.

Oh, hey, look.

Yeah.

And.

And the.

I was gonna put this up.

Haps figured out how to put his name in there.

So it's.

He says yes, it's Haps.

Congratulations to Haps.

He figured out something technology wise.

Yep.

But is, you know, it's crazy with the election.

When you look, he got Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, three huge states.

But if you look at California, more counties in California went red for this election than in 2020.

Well, this is a really interesting thing was.

And I, I was doing Keith Foskey from your Calvinist podcast.

Did an election night thing, got a bunch of us on.

So we were giving political commentary but having a lot of fun.

Is probably the most humorous fun election stream on.

On the Internet because he purposed for it to be a lot of humor.

And I noticed that Jersey went from a solid blue to leaning blue.

And so I was watching it, it got within 2%.

You know, they did the ballot dumps in NORC late, you know, and it, it was, if you, if you look at it, it's a 5%.

If you realize that RFK was still on the ballot in Jersey, that's four, four and a half percent.

Basically, new Jersey is, is almost the definition of a swing state.

That's crazy to think about.

Yeah, right.

Yeah.

So if you look, New Jersey, New York, California, the solid ones were all close than, closer than ever before.

New Jersey's was never close.

Democrats would win by like 15, 20 points.

And they only won one by five.

New York only won by nine.

A lot of those states where RFK Jr.

Was still on the ballot made a difference because a lot of those votes that just didn't, they didn't like Trump, but they didn't, they didn't like Kamala.

They voted for RFK Jr and that took away from Kamala, but it didn't take away from everyone that was going to vote for Trump in the first place.

And so.

Interesting.

Yeah.

So.

So you're saying that the, the extra half a point would go for Kamala in New Jersey, so it'd be five and a half.

Okay, that could be.

Yeah.

I mean, and because when you think about it, you know, rfk, just the family legacy of being a Democratic dynasty, I guess you could say, with the family in Washington, in the government, you know, you have people who are lifelong Democrats because of the Kennedy family.

Right.

But they know they don't like Kamala because of how far left she is, but they're not quite on the Trump train yet.

Right.

And so it's like, well, who are you going to vote for?

Well, I'll vote for RFK Jr.

You know, and, and Robert Kennedy was in all those states.

He was trying to get off of the ballots.

Right.

Once he, once he, he gave his endorsement to Trump, he's trying to get off the ballots.

And then the people who were trying to prevent him from running in the first place from getting on the ballot, they said, oh, no, no, no, you can't get off now.

So they wouldn't even let him off.

And I think that's one of the things that ended up hurting her in some states.

Well, the thing is so interesting is that there was a Democrat, another Democrat that was running.

I forget his name, like Cook or something.

I forget.

They sued.

He's, he was still running.

They sued to get him off in the same states that they sued to keep RFK on.

So it's like, don't like, you know, you're, you want to keep a Guy on that's not running, but.

Yeah, well, I know one other than.

Than Donald Trump.

I think the biggest person that.

That needs to get credit for this would be Elon Musk.

And Elon Musk had a lot online.

If Elon, If Harris won, I mean, they were threatening to try to destroy his business.

It's really quite funny.

I had people contact me Wednesday and text me, I'm buying a Tesla because of Elon Musk.

I have a friend of mine who's totally against EVs, didn't like him, but he told me he's going out and I think he's getting the cybertruck.

Oh, wow.

Yeah, So I told them.

I.

I totally encouraged it just so I could drive it.

Yeah.

So those cyber trucks, I've.

I've.

I've only seen one.

Like, really up close.

They're really, really ugly.

But when I got to see it and see, like, the actual truck bed space, I was really impressed.

And there's actually a lot of people who are.

They're welders.

Right.

They're independent contractors for construction companies.

They buy these trucks because in the truck bed actually have a plug that can power generators and it can power welding machines for just forever without anything really happening to the battery or the truck itself.

And it's really impressive.

Yeah, you.

Yeah.

I mean, the car, it's.

The truck itself is a huge battery.

So, yeah, you can, You.

You can get that and then use that as a generator, which a lot of these guys do.

Yeah, yeah, I've seen.

I.

I did tell my buddy I saw one that was.

It was wrapped in black, and then.

Then what they did was they had put some.

And it actually looked cool because they look bad, but it looked good.

They wrapped it in black and then they.

They put some, like, rails on the top.

So I'll just.

I'll just, you know, for everyone to see.

I'll show everyone mine.

And.

Yeah, the one you.

The one that's yours you found in the parking lot.

Yeah, that's exactly right.

Thank you.

That's exactly what it was right there.

Yeah.

You know, I'm not.

I don't like Tesla cars, but I am a fan of Elon Musk, and he's a guy that actually, a couple years ago, it seems like he was intentionally trying to do things to, like, see if he could tank his company.

Like, one.

He tried to tank his own stock, and he was telling people, don't buy any more of Tesla stock.

You know, don't do any of that.

And then people kept Buying more.

And it shot it through the roof.

Yeah.

Well, you don't enjoy the Tesla cars because you probably haven't driven one.

Test drive one.

They're fun.

I mean, okay, I'll go test drive.

Maybe they'll let me test drive one.

I just.

I just drove one in.

In Dallas.

It is a lot of fun.

Okay.

But I never thought about that, doing that.

Now I have ridden in one when I've traveled to Dallas, when.

Because we Uber everywhere when I travel for work.

I might have to see if we can't rent a car instead.

And rent a Tesla.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, let's.

I know you're gonna go backstage.

I'm gonna bring Robert in so we could talk some Hebrew roots and Old Testament covenants.

So.

R.L.

Solberg.

Robert Solberg.

Welcome to Apologize Live, sir.

Good to see you, my friend.

Thanks for having me on again.

Good to see you again.

Yeah.

Well, I don't know if you remember that guy that, you know, was the blah, blah, blah guy, but we play that every once in a while.

I love that.

I hope he comes back.

He never came back on after, you know, that time.

He wanted to, you know, correct you, but I guess scripture wasn't in line with him.

Yep.

So it has been a long time since we've had you back on and you've written another book since your Torahism book, so.

You know, by the way, I should mention I am completely jealous of you, just for the record, because you were actually able to get a debate with Rabbi Tovia Singer.

Oh, yeah, well, yeah, that actually fell into my lap.

I didn't go looking for it.

So.

Yeah, well, I've.

I have said publicly that I will debate Tovia Singer anywhere, anytime, without any preparation, because that's how bad his arguments are.

He actually heard that.

He emailed our ministry.

He called the ministry.

He sent a message on Facebook to the ministry.

He contacted the person whose YouTube channel I was on through YouTube, and then he called that person's ministry five different ways, asking for a way to get in touch with me so we could.

Set up a debate.

And so I said, sure, let's do it.

He actually created a banner that he used to have on his Facebook page, and it had a picture of both of us.

And he said, we're going to be debating, you know, a rabbi and a.

A pastor.

And I think he even said, former Jewish Christian pastor.

And so he was all in favor for it.

And then I had a guy contact the ministry who said he wanted to help me with debate prep for tovia and he said he used to be a former pastor.

Now, I never gave him my full debate strategy, but I guess I gave him enough because later in the conversation I realized this guy actually converted to Judaism and follows Tovia.

So ever since then, Tovia has ghosted me.

And when one of our guys used to work for us asked him why he's dodging me, we noticed afterwards he went and removed the banner that.

And so he went back years to find the banner and remove it and someone said that he had removed it.

So I went and looked and yep, it was gone.

So, yeah, you.

I'm jealous.

You.

You got the debate that, that I still can't get.

Yeah, yeah, that was a.

That was a heady experience.

But yeah, they.

They reached out to me and almost for sure it's because they knew that I was an unknown, easy to push around guy, or they thought I was.

They thought you were.

Because that debate did not go well for him at all.

So if you want.

Folks, if you want to see that debate, just go and search for.

For Robert Solberg and Tovia Singer.

That was an entertaining, fun debate.

I always like watching Tovia Singer get his hat handed to him.

Which you did very effectively.

I appreciate it.

So, so let's, let's.

For folks who, who haven't followed you, I know we got Haps Addison, who's in the.

In the watching online.

He is probably your largest fan.

He's awesome.

He loves you.

I mean, I'm just going to tell you in private groups that we're in Haps talks about you and praises you all the time.

He's like a little kid in a candy store probably right now.

Here he goes, he's putting up.

He says, love, Solberg, and thanks for sending me his book.

I sent him a copy of Torahism.

I think that's the one I sent him.

Cool.

Hey, Haps.

All right, so let folks know a little bit about you.

And really, you are the only author I know that has a book on that deals with Hebrew roots and you call it Torahism.

So let's start by.

How did you get into that?

I know, I know that story.

But for folks who don't know, you let them know how you stumbled into this.

What got you writing Torasm?

Why do you call it Torahism?

And then talk about your newest book.

Okay, yeah, that's.

It's an interesting story because I didn't intend to find this, this belief system, so I.

For a long time I've been studying philosophy, apologetics, that sort of thing.

And I was also always interested in sort of the common thing you think about when you think about apologetics.

You know, faith versus science.

Faith, Faith versus atheism, that sort of thing.

And so when I had a friend of mine who was.

We went to church together, and his wife and my wife sang worship music together.

And suddenly one Christmas, he was posting about why Christmas was pagan and you shouldn't celebrate it.

And so I thought, well, that's weird.

What's going on with this guy?

And he's from Minneapolis, so that's where we used to live for many years.

We moved down here to Nashville 20 years ago.

So I hadn't talked to him in years.

And so I reached out and said, hey, what's going on?

I'll bite.

Why would you call it pagan?

So that is what I.

What I kind of refer to as stumbling through the back of the wardrobe into this other world that I didn't even know existed, had no idea about it.

And so what happened was I began debating him or, you know, dialoguing with him or attempting to dialogue with him just on Facebook.

So it was one of those rare, rare literary devices.

That was actually a very productive Facebook argument.

And what happened was, again, I wasn't aware of how big this was or what was going on, you know, across actually the world, now that I know it.

But I started getting people reaching out to me that I didn't know.

Some of them were relatives or friends of his.

Others were other people dealing with the exact same thing in their own worlds, asking me, oh, this is great.

What do you say about this?

What do you say about.

So I noticed there was a need.

And there's a great book by.

Is it by Blackaby, Experiencing God?

And he talks about.

I love it.

He talks about, don't just make up stuff.

Go find out where God's working and join him there.

And so that's what I feel like I ended up doing, joining God where he was dealing with these small little pockets.

It's not some huge thing like Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or something like that.

So a lot of people haven't heard of this whole thing, though typically the most common name for it is Hebrew roots, but that doesn't describe everybody, and a lot of them don't want to be called that.

So the concept is, in a nutshell, there's not one monolithic movement, but the concept is that these are people who follow Jesus and at the same time believe that Christians are required to keep the Old Covenant Law and that not Keeping the Old Covenant Law is sinful and disobedient.

So that's kind of the common thread in any of these, what we might call Torah observant with quotes, Torah observant or Torah keeping Christian communities.

And so because there were so many versions of it, so many flavors with slightly different theology here and there, I ended up coining the term Torahism because that seemed to be the best name I could think of that also didn't have baggage attached to it.

So I wanted to come up with a name that I felt would represent it, the Torah.

Of course, the Torah itself is a beautiful and fundamental part of the Christian faith.

So nothing against that.

But Torahism is this misapplication of the Old Covenant Law to, on or against New Covenant Christians.

And it's just.

It's just ridiculous.

And it's amazing to see.

I get, I bet I get more than a dozen messages a week directly from people who are either in their churches, in their families, in their marriages, are suffering because of this belief system, or I should say because of people who are extremist about this belief system.

So I'm seeing a lot of damage.

But it's funny, when I bring it up with average churchgoers, they have no idea what it is unless they've experienced it.

Then they're like, wow, what do you do about it?

You know?

So that was kind of the.

That was kind of the area that I felt God sending me to, which at the time, I'll be honest, it felt a little bit like he was sending me out to like a remote outpost on the eastern front of the kingdom.

Right.

And I wanted the big battles, but this is where he sent me.

And of course God was right and I was wrong and there's lots going on here.

So I'm glad I'm.

I'm glad I'm here.

Yeah, I mean, it is something where no one really tackles it or deals with it like you have.

Yeah, that's why, that's why I ended up kind of pursuing it.

What I ended up doing was every time my buddy would write something, some make some claim, I would.

I would instantly know in my soul and my brain that's not right.

But I couldn't put my finger on it.

So I'd study it and then post a blog article.

So I ended up with a series of blog articles about it.

And then my pastor said, My pastor from my previous church said, you should collect all those into a book because we have that problem at our church.

He just had to kick a guy out of Sunday school, Sunday teaching, because he was starting to teach all this stuff.

And so I said, sure, that'd be easy.

I got all these blogs, I'll just write a book.

But of course it's never that simple.

So you know, a year later I finally got the book done.

So yeah, writing a book is a big thing.

So first off we have St Zone.

I don't know how to properly pronounce dezone maybe he says, yo, you're awesome.

Love your videos.

Thank you.

I don't know if he's talking to you or me.

I'm gonna assume you.

Oh yeah, that's a good point.

It could be you.

It could be, but I doubt it because I've never seen the name before.

He's not a regular here, but hopefully he will be.

Haps says to ask you what two house theology is in human roots.

Hebrew roots.

Okay, so this is one of those things and it's interesting because all these different topics you get into with Hebrew roots, there are different flavors of arguments and some people use terms that we think have a meaning and it means something totally different.

Two house theology is this idea, loosely speaking, I'll kind of touch on all the different flavors of it that I've heard.

But the idea, it goes back to the divided kingdom of Israel, right?

So you have the 10 tribes in the north, the two tribes in the south, the 10 tribes in the north were wiped off the map by Assyria, assimilated.

And then the two tribes in the south, Judah and Benjamin, were then, you know, conquered by Babylon, went into exile, came back, et cetera, et cetera.

So out of that exile and return came all these, I'll call this, call them crazy conspiracy theories.

I'm just going to call them what they are.

So things like the lost ten tribes of Israel.

This is exactly the type of theology that even spun off into black Hebrew Israelites or just Hebrew Israelites as sometimes they call it now.

The concept of it is that, oh, we don't know what happened to the ten tribes, but so we think it's us, whoever us might be.

You know, there's, there's a, there's a British version of it, you know, British Israelism.

Israelism.

So it's the whole concept of how it split up where those tribes are now.

And then there's also another component or another approach to this two house theology.

The Kingdom of Israel, the Kingdom of Judah, the thought, one of the thoughts you'll hear is that, oh well, they're called Jews because they're all from Judah.

And now when you become a Christian, when you start following Jesus, you have to join, you become grafted into Israel, and so you become an Israelite.

And so now you're under the law that God gave to Israel at Sinai.

I'm mashing up a bunch of different versions of it, but this is the general concept that there's these two houses, these two House of Judah, house of Israel, and somehow that impacts how we follow Jesus today.

And for me, someone who actually is an Israelite from the tribe of Levi, I find it so amazing that, like, everyone wants to say, oh, somehow we become Israel.

You know, I find it interesting that whether you look at the Catholic Church, you look at the Mormonism, you look at all these different groups, they want to claim they're Israel, right?

And I think the.

The only way I can make sense of it is it seems as if they think that because Israel is called God's chosen people, and somehow this may.

That gives them some special, I don't know, grace privilege, you know, like to seem like they're special too.

Israel was used by God for a special purpose at that time.

And he's.

He.

It doesn't mean that the church is not in a special place in this time.

Right.

You know, yeah, it's interesting because everyone wants to feel, like you said, special.

So it becomes.

It becomes an identity issue, which to me is very problematic because, you know, Galatians, there's a lot of.

A lot of places in the Bible.

Galatians 3, I'm thinking of specifically.

There's no Jew and gentile in Christ.

There's no male and female.

There's no slave and free.

We're all one.

We're all seeds of Abraham by faith.

So this trying to bring it back to an ethnic identity really frustrates me, especially when you've got, like.

I had Vocab Malone on my channel interviewing him, and he's like an expert in black Hebrew, Israelism.

And the concept is, to me, offensive because it's like God shows in Acts 17, Paul says, God shows all the borders of the nations and when they would be and who, you know, where would be born.

And he's in charge of all that stuff.

So no one chooses their own skin color or ancestry or any of that.

God chooses that for us.

And so if you're an African American, let's say, and you want to eject, reject the African heritage and say, no, we're actually.

We're Hebrews.

And then now you have to say, well, when you say, well, then, okay, well, then who are the Jewish people today?

Oh, there's some other, you know, mutt race or something.

I mean, it's just horribly offensive.

What you're doing is you're denying the identity God gave you and trying to go after something else.

You know what I mean?

And so it becomes heartbreaking in a sense, that some people would come up with these fantasies about how they have to chase after this identity when God already knows who they are and determined all that for them.

And we should all.

I think everybody of every skin color should be celebrating how God made them.

Right.

And so when you get into this.

And I think it's honestly a spinoff from identity politics, kind of the theological twist of it.

And to me, it's just heartbreaking.

Yeah.

Well, I remember after reading your book, I.

I asked you if you knew vocab.

I think I put the two you in touch with me.

Yeah.

I introduced you.

Because so much of what you're doing.

He's written the only book that I know of on black Hebrew Israelites.

And.

And you're right.

Now they call themselves Hebrew Israelites.

Yeah.

And.

And I just saw the.

The work the two of you are doing.

There's a really good mesh there.

Yeah.

There's a lot of overlap, especially.

Yeah, yeah.

And for folks that, you know, as I mentioned, black Hebrew Israelites, and as you mentioned it, there's one passage they use.

Those who are longtime listeners here, you know, we've had blackie beer Israelites come in here, and we've dealt with this verse.

We had a debate.

Actually.

You've got one guy to.

To finally debate me for like a year and a half, because when I say I'm a Levite, they freak out.

It drives them nuts because they'll be like, you're a fake Israelite.

You're not a real Israelite.

And I'll go, how do you, you know, like, the rabbis trace it back through the last names and through lineages, you know, so.

And so his father begot so and so's father.

You know, like, that's how you do genealogies.

Right.

How do you have.

How could you figure it out?

Because I don't think that, like, when the black slave trade was happening, the African slave trade, that they were like, oh, what line?

Oh, oh, you're from Judah.

Okay.

We could take you and bring you in, and we're gonna make you a captive.

Like, that didn't happen.

That.

That's their argument.

Because they'll.

They'll say that like, the.

The Judah, those in America are From the line of Judah, and I think it's Dan, that's in Jamaica.

Like, the slave trade was really concerned in making sure the tribes were kept, you know, together.

But the only verse they have that they use to argue this is Deuteronomy 28, verse 68.

And let me read this to you and explain how they argue.

They say it says, the Lord will bring you back to Egypt in ships.

By the way, about which I spoke to you, you will never see it again.

And there you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but there will be no buyer.

Now, they argue that this is the African slave trade because only Africans were sold as slaves in ships.

So the word that they will take literally is the word ship.

Egypt doesn't mean Egypt.

That.

That actually, in their mind, that actually means slavery.

Now, I've.

I've been confused with it, because when you look at this, it's kind of interesting with the fact that if.

If they're going to say that this is the African slave trade, and I've asked them this.

So are you telling me that there were no people sold as slaves?

Because according to this, it says they sell themselves to their enemies, but there's no buyer.

Right.

Huh.

That's not the African slave trade.

And one of the things that I have challenged them with is Jeremiah 44.

8.

Because what I argue is that we do know that there were Jewish people, Israelites, that fled to Egypt when the Assyrians came in.

And also when Nebuchadnezzar came in, they fled to other countries.

Jeremiah 44.

8 says, Provoking me to anger with the works of your hands, burning sacrifices to their gods in the land of Egypt, where you are.

Where you are entering to reside, so that you might be cut off and become a curse and a reproach among all the nations of the earth.

So in Jeremiah's time, Israelites were fleeing to the land of Egypt.

So we have the Bible telling us exactly what Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy is referring to.

Yeah, exactly.

Well, I mean, and it goes even back further than that, because you have to.

You and I talked about this before we went live.

Context.

Yeah.

What is Deuteronomy 28?

It's the blessings and the curses.

The blessings for obedience, the curses for disobedience.

And so that's tied directly to the people that were pulled out of Egypt.

Right.

The Israelites.

I mean, from Deuteronomy 28, it goes all the way back to Abraham.

And so.

And so to think that.

So that would have been, what, 3,000 years before the slave trade that brought people here.

You know, there is no historical line of connection between any of that is the problem in the Bible.

It's all directly related to Abraham and then Isaac and Jacob and then the 12 tribes and so on and so on.

But there's nothing, there's nothing anywhere that indicates that's not for those people.

That's not for those people in that time.

And what happened was those were the blessings and the curses for disobeying or obeying and keeping the covenant.

Right.

Well, Jeremiah 31 says they disobeyed in the.

They broke the covenant.

And so we now are under a new covenant.

I mean, they're missing the whole.

It's like they took a branch off the highway of biblical theology and just went over to this weird, strange political theory that has no support in the Bible and no support in history for the things they're claiming.

Well, so what they do with this, which is so funny, they take one word, ship, that's literal.

Everything else is figured.

Yeah.

And when you challenge them on it, they go to Isaiah, chapter 28.

And this is how they.

What they'll say is they say, you, you can't read the Bible like a book.

And so they look at Isaiah 28:10 and, and verse 13, which says.

Verse 10 says.

He says, order on order, order on order, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.

And it recites the same thing in verse 13.

So they say you can't read the Bible like a book.

You have to take it here a little, there a little.

Which is kind of really interesting because if they read the verses just before that.

Order on order, order on order.

Line.

Online.

Online would actually say that you shouldn't take here a little, there a little.

They say what you're supposed to do is take a.

Take a verse over here and a verse over there and stick them together.

It's called proof texting, which is not how you interpret.

It's just.

Yeah, that's frustrating.

I mean, I think it was Irenaeus, one of the church fathers, talked about false theologies like this, and he compared it to like a mosaic.

Right.

So you've got all these different tiles and the Bible puts them together and let's say it shows an image of a king, Jesus as the king.

Right.

Well, so a lot.

What a lot of these false theologies do is they take the exact same tiles, the verses and the ideas from the Bible, mix them around, and now they have a picture of a.

Of A hippopotamus or something.

It's the same.

It's the same data, but it's just getting mixed up.

And you can really do that.

You can go anywhere you want.

If you're going to start pulling stuff out of context.

It's, it's, it's really scary.

Yeah, it is.

So.

So let me, let me just tell folks, if you want, you can go out and get the book.

Tourism, it.

I know it's available on Amazon.

Is there any place better they could go to get.

There you go.

No, that's the only place available.

This is through Williamson College Press.

Did you refresh the COVID Because I.

Mine, I think it has the brown cover.

Well, you don't have the second edition.

No.

With 100 additional pages.

Yeah.

Wow.

Yeah.

So, yeah, this is, this is the.

The blue version is revised and expanded.

Yeah.

So it's available hardcover, soft cover, audio book.

I did the audio.

It's available on Kindle as well.

It's on Kindle.

So is the Kindle one updated?

I guess that would be all in the second edition.

Yeah.

So I have the Kindle version as well.

You have the classic.

Yeah.

That's going to be worth about 4 cents any minute now.

So hold on to that.

Yeah.

So let's get into.

Well, actually, first, you know, we should allow you to give your, you know, where do you work and some of the stuff that you're doing professionally.

Yeah, so.

Well, I'm an author, obviously.

I've got.

I've got three books out, a fourth one coming out.

I've got one for anyone that's out there.

I got to promote the new book coming out.

It's dropping in March from Zondervan.

It's called the Law, the Christ, the Promise.

And it's a.

It's a Galatians Bible study, but it's an apologetic approach to that, to that book.

Interesting.

Yeah.

So.

And I've got three other books.

I'm an author.

I'm also a professor at Williamson College here in Nashville, a professor of theology.

And occasionally they'll have me do philosophy as well.

And then.

Yeah, and then I've got a ministry defending the biblical roots of Christianity.

So that's my apologetic and teaching ministry.

And we've got YouTube channel.

We're putting out constant videos, Bible studies, that sort of thing.

Thebiblicalroots.org is the website.

Thebiblicalroots.org yeah.

You're also a musician?

Yes, I'm a recovering professional musician.

I call myself.

You have.

You have done the Intros for both my.

This show and my rap report, so.

Oh, yeah.

So I.

And I enjoy both of them.

And I do all the music, little interstitial music cues on my.

On my videos, too.

It's just a fun little side project for me to put some of that stuff together.

Lets you use your.

Your skills that you had, you know, early in life to use this way.

So.

Yeah, that's good.

Yeah.

So I still do.

I still do play music.

Not professionally, but my wife and I work with a prison ministry called behind the Walls.

It's been around for like 50 years.

So we actually, we fly all over tomorrow.

We're.

We're headed down to Dallas to do some prisons.

We do music there and then just help spread the gospel sharing with folks one on one.

It's awesome.

And then we do, you know, we worship on the worship team.

We do a lot of stuff locally here for.

What do you want to call them?

I don't know if they're all ministries, but they're all.

They're all.

They're all organizations that help others.

That's kind of the main thing we do with our music now.

Just using it to kind of.

To serve the Lord.

Yeah.

Well, I was just down in Dallas for the Fight Laugh Feast conference, so it was just.

I could tell you this.

If you like sushi, I will tell you where to go for sushi in Dallas because I found an excellent, excellent place.

Oh, where is it?

It was called Blue Sushi Sake and Blue Blue Sushi Sake Grill.

Okay.

I'm writing this.

Yeah, right.

So here's what you got to do.

And folks, if any sushi connoisseurs out there will tell you a trick.

I went with a brother, and he didn't know this either.

I educate lots when it comes to sushi.

But what you want to do when you go to a sushi place is ask them if they have fresh wasabi.

Now, that's not fresh paste.

If they give you the paste.

The paste wasabi is horseradish.

Wasabi itself is very expensive, so it's in the horseradish family.

So what they do is they add green dyed to horseradish, and that's what they typically give you.

If you get the paste, you're not having real wasabi, so you got to make sure.

Usually it comes in one or two forms.

Usually it comes and it's usually in, like, a little sauce and it'll look like a little bean sauce.

That it.

What the.

What real wasabi does.

You put it on.

Don't put Soy sauce.

Just put the wasabi, and it brings out all the flavor of the meat.

But this place was even better because it wasn't just that they had fresh wasabi.

They actually had the root.

And he just, like, shaved it off right there.

It was great.

So right there and then I knew, and I turned to my friend and said, we are going to get some good, fresh fish, because if they have real wasabi, they have good fish.

Because if they.

If they care enough for that.

Now, granted, folks, if you're.

If you ask for fresh wasabi, it's usually an extra cost because it is very expensive.

So you get a little bit of wasabi, and it's like 10 or $15, but it's worth it.

It's worth it when you go there.

So, yeah, so if you go there, they.

There were some great, great fish.

Loved it.

I.

My buddy and I said, we are glad that we discovered it the last night of Fight Laugh Feast, because if we discovered it the first night, I think we would have been there every night.

Like, we actually went to someone's house.

We knew that they were just gonna have, like, light snacks.

So we ate at the sushi place, went there.

We were driving back because the organizers of the conference were at the hotel, and we didn't realize they were waiting for us to go over there.

So we are heading back, and I turn to my buddy.

I'm like, any chance you think that that was.

The sushi place is still open.

He goes, you want to go back?

I'm like, absolutely.

I was willing to go twice in one night.

It was that good.

So you'll have to check it out.

Give me a report what you think.

Okay, that's awesome.

So let's talk about your other two books that you got out.

Yeah, I have one of them on the covenant.

One of them is called Divergence.

Yeah.

Examining Jewish Christian relations in the early Church.

So this really looks at.

This is actually a popular rewrite of my master's thesis.

And it's really interesting because it's talking about the first 300 years of the Christian faith.

What was the relationships like between Jews and Christians?

And one of the reasons I went into that is because, first of all, I love history, but also a lot of these Hebrew roots folks when I say, well, how are you?

Right.

And the rest of the church wrong?

And they'll invariably bring up all of these conspiracy theories about a Constantine's.

The boogeyman, of course, but all.

All these things about how the.

How the early church wanted to.

Wanted to cut ties with Judaism and wanted to, you know, start their own thing.

And they were very hostile.

And there was a lot of antisemitism in the early church and so on and so on.

And I'll ask them things like, well, if they wanted to cut ties with the Old Testament and the Jews, why did they include the entire Hebrew Bible in the Christian canon?

That's an interesting way to try to cut ties.

You know, they should be more like.

Andy Stanley and just unhitch themselves from the Old Testament.

Right, exactly.

So, you know, you know who is famous for doing this in the second century?

Marcion.

Right.

And he said.

Not only did he say, first of all, he gives the church a bunch of money, right?

And he says, oh, this is great, you know, and I have some ideas.

And so what he comes up with his own.

I think he was actually the first person in history to suggest a canon, a pro, you know, a proper canon.

His canon included.

Not only did it include none of the Old Testament, it included only 14 of the new Testament books.

And even those were severely edited to get rid of mentions from the Old Testament.

Because he had this theory that the God of the Old Testament was this vindictive, like, tribal, angry God and Jesus was a totally separate God who basically came down, you know, from heaven just out of the blue.

And so this was basically, this is what exactly what many Torah keepers think happened in the Christian church.

And I asked them, well, what do you think the Christian church did to Marcion?

Did they open, you know, accept him with open arms?

No.

They not only excommunicated him and kicked him out, they gave him all his money back and said, we don't want anything to do with this.

Because, you know, they knew.

They knew that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah and that for Jesus and the.

And the New Testament authors and the apostles, the Old Testament, the Hebrew scriptures, that was their whole Bible.

Right.

So this whole idea of, you know, corruption, historical seeds of corruption.

I'm not saying that everything was nice and pretty, but this idea that there was some sort of antisemitism, anti Jewishness, that led to theological distortion in the church is just.

It's just false.

Yeah.

And when we have these groups that try to rewrite history.

Hey, wait, we have a group today, they're called the Democrats.

They do the same thing, you know, but it really.

It goes back to.

If you read the book, 1984, right.

What does he say there?

That those who control the past control the future.

So if you can rewrite history, then you can make up what we're doing today.

Yeah.

I mean, that's what the Nazis did.

They made up the Aryan race in the whole history of this perfect race of people.

Just made it up.

Yeah.

Fabricated it.

Yeah.

But so many groups do that to try to rewrite history.

And if you have to.

Look, any group that has to be dishonest with history to make their argument has already lost their argument.

I agree.

Yeah.

100%.

I mean that's, it's ridiculous.

And the interesting thing is, and it's sad to me and frustrating, but the Internet has, is like poured gasoline on that whole thing.

Well, I think, I think the reason for that is because some of the kooks that are out there would like people that would come to church and they want to teach kooky theology.

No one's going to let them in the church because there's pastors, they're like gatekeepers to that.

And so that prevents it.

But on the Internet there, it's a no holds barred.

So any kook can put, put out a channel.

And there's other kooks that are kind of, hey, yeah, I agree with the same thing.

And they get together.

I mean, the flat earth is a great example.

Right.

There's a lot of flat earthers in Torah keeping.

It's.

It's insane.

Yeah.

Well, I joked the first time that we had someone come on the show about flat earth and argue.

I was joking and said it was probably something that some atheist started just to try to show how gullible Christians are.

It turns out I wasn't that far from being off.

I guess the guy who started the flat earth society was an agnostic, but he argued, he tried to argue from the Bible.

So he was arguing that the Christian Bible teaches this and he would argue.

Now you say, well, why would he can.

Why would he do such a thing?

Because the guy has made millions and millions of dollars from this.

Which is really sickening to think about, but yes.

Yeah, it is.

You know, yeah.

One of the big problems with conspiracy theories in general, and this is probably just a professor in me speaking, but the reason they catch on in my opinion is because critical biblical thinking is a lost skill.

I'm speaking in broad terms, of course, but very often people will read something that stirs them up and just want to agree with it.

So they do.

They don't even critically think about, could that be true?

Could it not be true?

It's one of the things that we teach in one of my classes, Intro to Biblical Worldview.

And it's about that Sort of thing.

Objective truth versus subjective truth.

And how do we test things and how do we think critically?

And not only that, but when you apply that to the Bible, we also have, in my opinion, a dearth of biblical literacy.

It's one of the big things that my ministry is trying to do.

This is why we do these apologetic Bible studies, because you can't just, as an apologist, you can't just say, that's wrong and throw it out.

You know, I call it the puppy principle, where you've got a puppy and he's chewing on your shoe.

You take away the shoe, but then you give them a proper toy to chew on.

So it's the same concept with theology.

You show why this isn't true, why the Bible doesn't support this.

But also, let's look at what the Bible does say about this issue.

So you got both sides of it.

And between critical thinking and biblical literacy, it's like.

It's like a breeding ground for conspiracies.

Yeah.

Well, I've always said that the reason critical thinking had to be taken out of the public school system is, I argue, you can't teach evolution and critical thinking at the same time.

Because if you apply critical thinking.

Yeah.

If you apply critical thinking, you realize evolution doesn't make sense.

And now they've expanded that to.

I mean, now you can't even.

You talk about critical thinking in public school.

What's a boy and a girl?

We can't even define that.

Right.

Yeah.

And they want to tell us they're the smart ones.

Yeah.

Huh.

So tell us about your third book that you have out.

And I didn't grab a copy of it.

It's called what God Has Made Clean.

It's a short book, but it's very specifically about why Christians are not required to eat kosher food.

And so what I used.

I used a popular Hebrew roots or whatever, he would call himself Torahist teacher as the foil.

Because I don't like to make stuff up.

I don't like to straw man arguments.

Right.

So I'm using real arguments.

And in several cases, I steel man those arguments by saying, well, he kind of said it this way.

This way would actually make his point stronger.

And yet it's still wrong.

So we go through all the popular passages, Mark 7:19.

Thus he made all foods clean.

You got Acts 10, Peter's vision of the sheet with the animals.

Was that about animals?

Was that about Gentiles?

And so we kind of go through all that stuff and talk about also the bigger purpose, why Did God select a certain amount of animals and those particular animals as off limits or unclean?

And just look at it from a biblical theology perspective.

And it's been pretty popular because it's pretty easy to read.

It's a small book, but it's on a topic that a lot of people are confused about.

Yeah.

You bring up the Acts passage, which is a passage that so many will go and say that was when Christ declared the foods clean is, you know, to Peter.

And yet if you actually look at that, it's not about the food.

It's as you mentioned, about the Jewish gentile distinction.

And he's telling Peter it's okay to go to a gentile house.

And he uses the vision of the food.

Well, the reality is he already declared it clean before that.

Right.

The only reason that, that, that imagery of the food coming down makes sense for Peter is because it was already declared clean.

And it's also because Peter understood the connection between food and people back in the Torah.

Yes.

You know, when God said, keep yourself separate, don't eat these things.

And so there's this whole, you know, it was this whole sense of you're set apart for me, God said, and now we have that, we have a whole new distinction in the New Covenant, that we don't need the food laws or the circumcision laws to show the set apartness anymore.

Yeah.

And I'm not sure actually your, your denominational background.

Are you, you Baptist?

Presbyterian, I forget now.

I, I may.

I was raised Lutheran and then for the last 20 years I've been non denominational with a lowercase Baptist in the corner.

Yeah, yeah, that's okay, that's.

And then just, just lately we, I've gone back to my Lutheran roots.

Okay.

I usually say I'm Baptistic, I say Baptistic.

But so, so as.

Because Presbyterians, they'll, they'll kind of divide and actually reform Baptists will define the laws into a ceremonial, civil and moral right.

And, and I've always said, well where.

Give me that list like in scripture, which ones are which?

Because from a Jewish perspective, as you just said, I define the laws differently.

I see the laws that are universal for all people everywhere.

Thou shalt not lie, thou shalt not steal.

Things like that that are expected from both Jewish people and Gentiles back in the day.

But then I see laws that are for Israel and then laws for the church.

Now the laws for Israel, when we talk about like the food and all in Judaism, we refer to those as holiness laws.

Right.

What holiness means is to keep us separate.

So these laws that we have are to keep us separate from the nations.

Now, unless Christians are going to say, we don't need to keep holy anymore, we don't need to be separated from the world anymore.

Right.

So now all of a sudden they have to, you know.

But you brought up, you mentioned it in passing, and I, I, I wanted to highlight it because it shows the amount of study you've done that you just breeze over things that so many people miss.

But you mentioned mark, chapter 7, verse 19, right?

And this is where Jesus declared all foods clean.

That's exactly actually what it says, the context, starting in verse 18, right.

So he's talking to his disciples, you know, they're asking questions, and he says to them, are you so lacking in understanding also?

Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him?

And they were talking about the laws of how to, how to, you know, clean your hands before eating.

And, you know, it's cleanliness laws.

He says from, but he says, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach and eliminated.

Thus he declared all foods clean.

So at that point, he declared the foods what we would call, you know, kosher, non kosher.

They were all kosher, all at that point.

And this is pretty early in his ministry in Mark 7, so it's maybe halfway through.

Matthew 15 has a version of that same interaction and that one I love, because it says the Pharisees were offended.

It shows that they understood what he meant.

Yeah, you know, I think it was Peter that said, explain it to us.

Did you know that the Pharisees are offended by what you just said kind of thing?

And so there's, you get so much, there's so many theories and approaches and reinterpretations of that passage, which is, which is why it sparked that whole concept of.

That whole concept for that book was sparked largely from the mark 7, 19.

I actually, in the book, I have pictures of the, of the Greek manuscripts to show where that phrase is.

Because a lot of people deny, they say, well, it's in parentheses that was added to the manuscript by some, by some scribe later on, you know.

And so I actually go, well, no, it's in the early manuscripts, you know.

Yeah.

If people, people don't understand.

The early manuscripts, both Hebrew and Greek did not have punctuation period.

Oh, sorry, didn't mean to put low battery.

I gotta, I'll be right back.

I gotta plug in.

Okay.

While you plug in, I'll explain this.

So, so what we.

What we have to understand is that we don't have punctuation in the scriptures until about, you know, 6, 700 AD is when it starts.

So whenever people make an argument over punctuation, they're not making argument from the original language.

I believe, Andrew, punctuation was introduced in the manuscripts when they started introducing the minuscule text.

Yeah.

Rather than the magiscule text.

Correct.

There we go.

Yeah.

So punctuation, it's interesting in that manuscript I have, it's just.

Just unending blocks.

Correct.

Yeah.

But in some of the manuscripts, for that particular line, it's kind of set off by a mark, which is interesting.

So they.

So if you read through that whole interaction, Jesus is talking.

Jesus is talking.

And then you have this.

The reason it's in parentheses, thus, he declared all foods clean.

The reason it's set off in the Greek manuscripts is to show, well, this was.

This was Mark's commentary on what Jesus just said.

It wasn't the words of Jesus.

So that.

But.

But some English translations put it in parentheses for that reason, to say, no, this isn't the words of Jesus.

This is Mark commenting.

Yeah.

And so that's what throw.

And people see those parentheses and they get them all wrong, you know?

Yeah.

You know, for folks who don't do textual criticism, you know, you mentioned.

Okay.

In some manuscripts, it's off to the side.

We see this in the Greek manuscripts.

Remember, this is a time before word processors.

I know some of you can't conceive of that, but there was a time even in my generation where you had to write everything out before even electric typewriters.

And so.

And people are going on electric what?

So what people would do is when you're copying a long thing, there are times, remember, no punctuation.

It's just letter, letter, letter, letter, to.

Altogether.

If you look at the Hebrew, there.

There's no spaces even, Right.

And.

Exactly.

So you don't have any.

You.

Where's the word start and end?

You didn't have that.

So what would happen sometimes is someone would cop.

Be writing something and miss something.

So they would draw a line.

We do this today.

If you're writing something out, you draw a line to where that should be, and you write it in the margin or you write it above.

Okay.

You put a little carrot and write what should be there.

So it's like, oh, this is what was supposed to be there but missing.

And people do that today.

So, you know, this is what.

Why we see that it's not, as some people try to claim, oh, someone added something to the Bible, they put it in the margins, drew a line that's their own private notes that they added in.

Now, we do have times when that happened, and there's ways of looking at.

We try to get back to the earliest copies we can get.

If the earliest copy has it in the side that's written in, maybe it was someone's personal notes that made its way in.

But when the earliest copies have this in there, and then we see one that has it on the side, we realized someone was making a copy it was in earlier than that, and then they wrote it in.

Yeah, but people don't understand how.

How that transmission process worked.

I'm actually going to post a link here in the.

In the.

There we go to two of my videos I'm reviewing.

This guy named Mani Judah.

The theory that some scribe went and changed it somewhere completely misses Is historically how we got our copies of the Bible and our manuscripts.

So in order for someone to go, ooh, I'm going to say, all food is clean.

And I'm just going to put that in there because I really like my bacon.

Which is honestly what some people will say.

You just don't want to give up your ham and your bacon.

So I'm going to put that in there.

Think about what they would have to do.

This person would.

That would need to go, okay, I'm going to, you know, here's my original, and I'm making my own version of this manuscript.

I'm going to move everything over, put it in here.

Great.

That all seems fine.

I'm going to try to sell it.

He's going to have to now travel the world and go to all the monasteries and the churches and all these different places who also have copies of that manuscript.

Right.

And he's going to have to make exact copies, duplicates, with his extra line in there, and somehow sneak it in with no one ever noticing across thousands of copies that we have.

Right.

Otherwise, people are going to immediately start noticing.

So the whole concept that there was some nefarious editing going on, it just doesn't stand up to, you know, the historical process that actually happened.

Yeah.

And text me that.

Text me those links so I can put it in the show notes of the podcast for folks, so it'll be easier.

Yeah.

I've got a question real quick about what you were saying.

Someone going in, making a text change like that.

It sounds like that person is trying to make an argument similar to what Bart Ehrman would make about almost like the telephone Game where you have one line of transmission rather than realizing you have multiple lines of transmission.

Right, exactly.

That's, that's a great analogy.

And we have things, we have things like the Dead Sea Scrolls that blew your mind and said, oh my gosh, all the Jewish scribes were unbelievably accurate.

Yes.

You know, and so we also have these.

So here's what happens.

I don't want to get too nerdy, so feel free to shut me down, but you've got the King James Bible, right.

Which is based on the Textus Receptus, which is the best Greek manuscript they had at the time.

And when I say at the time, I mean around the year 1600, this is 400 something years ago, they used the Textus Receptus.

It had all the best stuff they could get.

And they made a beautiful, beautiful translation.

Now, some people have stuck with that.

And you, I'm sure you've met your share of King James only folks.

But along the way, since that happened, we found thousands of other manuscripts older than what they had, what the King James folks had.

So we're finding manuscripts.

I mean, thousands.

I'm not even exaggerating.

I think there's five thousand something manuscripts of the New Testament.

About nine thousand now.

Nine.

Yeah.

So you're finding all of these, and they're dated earlier and earlier and closer and closer.

Closer to the original composition, you know, theoretically.

Meaning they, they're more likely more accurate.

Less, less telephone game stuff.

Right.

So, so now we have the, the, the.

What's it called?

The New Testamentum Griche Grace.

That is the new.

I think they're on the 28th version right now.

So they're constantly.

There you go.

And Drew pulls it up right there.

Yeah, There you go.

Thank you.

Yeah.

And so now we have.

And this actually plays out a lot in Torah keeping circles, especially King James only because if you look at Mark 7:19 in the King James version, it says something about thus purging all meats.

It doesn't say thus he declared all foods clean.

And so the way the King James does it, they actually quote, they put that little extra saying, thus, he.

Thus.

The.

You know, thus purging.

It says, it says, because it.

Enter.

Into.

Enter.

Sorry.

Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly and goeth out into the drought, purging all meats.

Yeah.

So notice how when you read that, they're actually attributing those words to the, to the statement or the speech that Jesus is giving.

They're putting those words in Jesus.

Jesus's mouth.

Now, the newer manuscripts that we've discovered, many of them, the Codex Sinaiticus, for example, predates everything that the King James folks had.

And now that's where they start seeing that phrase set off.

And they started realizing, wait a second.

Because if you know Greek, and I'm just a.

I'm just a beginner, I'm not.

Nothing close to an expert, but if you know Greek, there are so many different ways that you can put together a sentence.

And like you said, if there's no punctuation, we now need to say, well, based on the case endings, which.

What's the subject and what's the object?

The classic example for Greek, for those who don't know it, would be in English.

We could say John kicked the ball.

But if we said the ball kicked John in English, that means something totally different.

In Greek, it doesn't matter to a degree.

It doesn't matter what order the words are in.

It's the case endings that determine it.

So when you start looking at things like thus, he declared all foods clean.

The reason that it's different in the.

In the.

What I call the newer or the.

And in my opinion, the more accurate manuscripts is because we began to realize with.

With textual, you know, the little line that set it off, or in some cases, as you mentioned, notes in the margins, people started to be able to realize that, wait, this was always this way.

And somewhere along the line, people merged Mark's commentary into Jesus's words.

And so in my opinion, this is.

This is how I read it, that they corrected that issue, which is not corrected in the King James.

Yeah.

And the new King James.

So the King James Bible contains no footnotes.

Really?

That.

Barely any.

In the.

In the new King James Version, they at least admit it.

They say, hey, in the other manuscript, they call it the nuance.

That in the nu.

Manuscript, this is actually.

This text is actually set off by a line.

So you can trace that stuff, but not if you're a conspiracy theorist that just, you know, those pesky things called facts get in the way.

Yeah, well.

And, you know, just for folks, if this seems.

Well, this is getting too much.

This is an area called textual criticism.

If it's seeming like too much, let me just.

I'll recommend getting my book what Do We Believe?

Chapter two deals with this whole thing.

It addresses, as Drew mentioned, the argument that Bart Ehrman and others make about the telephone game.

What we have in the Bible is not the telephone game.

The telephone game is audible.

I tell Drew something, Drew tells Robert something.

Robert tells you what he heard.

The problem is whatever I tell Drew, because Drew is a troublemaker, he's purposely going to say something different.

Now there's no way for Robert to verify what he heard from Drew is what Drew heard from me.

Why?

Because it's only going from one to the other to the other.

Right.

In a written source, we can compare them.

We can see.

What if I write it and I give it to Drew, he makes a copy and gives it to Robert.

Robert can look at both copies and see, oh, Drew lost something in the translation or in transmission.

And even more than that, I think Drew, you were alluding to it is the fact that what you just described was a linear one to one.

But the Bible translations aren't like that.

Correct.

Many times they would have a room full of six or eight or ten scribes and one person standing up reading, and they're all at the same time making their copies.

So it's a, it's a one to many sort of situation where again, you can, you can compare and actually get back to.

Even Bart Ehrman admits that the New Testament text we have is over 98% accurate to what it actually said in the original autographs that we don't have anymore.

So even Airmen will admit the accuracy of this sort of textual criticism?

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, given his background and that he was Bruce Metzger's final PhD student, it's like, well, he kind of has to at this point.

Like there's some things he just can't get away from.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, yeah.

And to his credit, he, he has some scholarly standards, so he doesn't want to just make stuff up.

Like maybe perhaps some political parties might do just make it up out of thin air to, to put themselves in a better light.

He's actually got some scruples about that.

And I, and I respect that.

So I.

The way I tell people if you're going to read Bart Ehrman is when Bart Ehrman is writing at a scholarly level and, you know, sourcing his work, you could pretty much trust it.

When he's writing for the masses, he'll state things that are true, but then put them into a totally different context so that he could say what.

What he knows isn't supported.

So when he, when he cites his work, it's pretty good.

When he doesn't cite his work, he's usually making it up.

Right?

Yeah.

I mean, yeah, his bias is showing quite a bit, obviously.

Yeah, yeah.

His doubt and his skepticism and all that.

Right now, I, I would Push back on you a little bit, Robert, when you say that at the Texas Receptus was the best they had at the time, because that time period be really short.

Because what we have at the time was Erasmus was.

There were others who were putting out Greek manuscripts.

And because paper and things are so expensive, he knew first to print wins.

So there actually were other Greek manuscripts that he did not include when he was putting Texas Receptus together, he didn't use because that would have taken more time.

No.

And so had he done that?

Because others did it.

But the Texas Receptus was the first one out.

And in fact, to what to son.

You were kind of saying with the different translations and all, there's passages we have in the Texas Receptus that people knew from the Latin Vulgate.

And when he put the first one out, because it wasn't in the manuscripts, it made it in the Latin Vulgate.

He actually translated the Latin Vulgate parts of Revelation from the Latin into Greek to put it into the Textus Receptus.

Yeah, the last.

So you see it in the book of Revelation.

Because he didn't have a manuscript for Revelation.

What he had was a commentary that he borrowed.

And so he extrapolated the Greek from the commentary except the last couple of pages because the pages had fallen out.

So that.

So he went back to the Vulgate and then back translated from Latin into Greek and come away with just phrases that no one had ever seen before.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Wow.

I wasn't aware of that.

Yeah.

So there's a really good book called God's Secretaries.

If you guys.

If you're into.

Who wrote that?

All about the making of the Adam Nichols.

Okay.

It's all about the writing of the.

Of the King James Bible, how they.

How they set up their committees, how brilliant.

These guys were, like, fluent in 12 or 15 languages.

It really gave me some new respect and just the literary beauty, especially considering the time it came out.

It was obviously.

The King James Version was world changing.

Yeah.

So I have more respect from it for it that way.

But also, like you're talking about, there's a number of those little strange situations.

Yeah.

That's also where we got the comma Yohanim as well.

It just.

It appeared in no Greek manuscript.

And all of a sudden.

And.

And Erasmus was pushed.

Well, why didn't you include the Trinitarian formula?

And he said, well, there's no manuscript that actually has it.

And then all of a sudden one appears and he put it in.

But he said he Made a note.

He said, I don't believe this is true, but I'm putting this in under protest.

Okay.

Yeah.

Disagree and commit.

So, you know, one of the things that you mentioned and for people to understand.

Hold on, Andrew.

I've got to bow out just because it's past the time.

It's time for you to go take care of your children.

That's right.

Because you got a little baby in the house.

A little, little baby.

Little, little baby.

And that little baby, she's about to steal your Mypillow.

You know that.

Well, he.

Oh, it's a he.

That's right.

Yeah, we're.

Yeah, all boys, Remember?

All boys.

And.

And do they all have a mypillow?

Have they all stolen your mypillow?

That's.

That's the question.

So my.

They haven't.

It's really my oldest now.

So he.

When he wants to go to bed, he starts out in our bed.

And so I have to go put him to sleep in our bed.

And he always takes my.

He lays on my pillow before I can get there.

And then when I.

When it's time for me to pick him up and carry him into his room, he's still holding on to my pillow.

And so it just makes his way into his bedroom with it.

So.

So at this point, I have no pillow.

So, folks, don't be like, drew, go out to mypillow.com.

get yourself a good pillow.

Drew.

Drew has not figured this out, that he could do this on his own.

He's still waiting for me to send him a second MyPillow.

But go to MyPillow.com, use promo code SFE and, in fact, Drew, now would be an excellent time for you to get one because it's.

I know it's limited supply, but they were running the cheapest I have ever seen because MyPillow had some retailer that said, nope, we don't want some huge order.

They turned them down, and he is selling them for under $15 for the standard pillow.

So, yeah, if you ever thought about getting one, now would be the time.

Go to mypillow.com you have one.

Yeah, my wife and I both.

Yeah.

Aren't they great?

They're great.

It's weird because for me, it wasn't like this eureka level of comfort.

I like.

I don't know what I expected when I put my head on it, but all of a sudden, my sleep improved.

Yes.

It was crazy.

Yeah.

No, that's what happens.

And so use the promo code sfe.

It stands for striving fraternity that will not only get you all your discounts but let them know that you heard about them from us so they'll keep supporting us.

And I travel with mine.

So I, I love mine so much.

I have the one that stays here at home.

And then because I actually made the mistake of.

And this is why if you ever go to my hotel room, you'll see I have a flowery pillowcase.

At least you start to make fun of it.

The purpose is because I had a white pillowcase and I left my, my pillow in the hotel.

Hotel.

So some hotel has a very nice pillow there.

And so my wife now gives me a flowery pillowcase so that I don't leave it behind.

And so, so but I travel with, I have one that I stays home for that reason in case I forget it.

But I have a travel one.

You know, for Christmas this year instead of toys, my kids are just going to get pillows.

I think that's, I think that would make peace in your house.

But gift that keeps on giving, you know.

But for, for, for Robert, who already knows the value of a good my pillow even though he probably bought it before he knew about the promo code sfa right where you can now have.

To go and get another one.

Well, if you don't get a new one, I mean they got, they got, I got the slippers on right now, but you got the slippers, you got robes, you got towels.

I, I'll tell you right now, if you really want to improve your sleep, Robert, you haven't tried this one, the three inch mattress topper.

I, I absolutely love that.

I had the sleep number bed and thought it was the best ever.

I added the 3 inch mattress topper on top of it.

Now I don't think that bed was good enough by itself.

That made a huge difference.

We had a guest that was on my wrap report.

He said he was weighing between buying a whole new bed which would have cost several hundred dollars.

Like he was looking at spend 6, 700 for a bed.

He just bought the mattress topper and he said it was like getting a brand new bed.

So, so you can get that with promo code sfe.

But since you already have the pillow, Robert, you probably need a good cup of coffee to wake up in the morning and to do so.

There you go.

And you need to start drinking Squirrely Joe's coffee though because not only do you get a really good tasting coffee, you're also supporting a Christian family.

I actually got to meet Squirrely Joe at Fight Laugh Feast this past weekend.

And so we were drinking there some nice Squirrely Joe's coffee.

I think I was drinking Integrity all weekend long.

So he had different ones out there.

He's.

I love the names he's got for him, but Integrity is one of my favorites.

So he had that there.

But you can get 20% off your first offer.

You just go to strivingforatturney.org coffee.

Use the promo code SFE on your first order to get 20% off.

And I will say that if you keep going to Striving Fraternity coffee, that is the way he knows that you found out about him from us.

So keep going there when you want to reorder your coffee, which Drew needs to get a lot of the coffee because, well, he's got a baby in the house.

Oh, yeah.

And so how does it work?

Does.

Is it like you drink the flavor that you're lacking?

Right.

So if I'm lacking, like integrity, I drink Integrity.

Well, what you need to do.

The answer to that is on my most recent Rap Report podcast.

Actually, not the most recent.

Last week's.

The one that dropped last week because there I asked the question, are you drinking enough coffee?

We had Squirrely Joe on.

We talked about how he makes the coffee, which was really fascinating.

I learned a lot more about coffee.

But he.

He did talk about the fact that he has found it funny that he supplies coffee conferences with.

With coffee.

That's a ministry that they do.

And I can attest to the fact that I've been to several conferences where as speakers, we get a free bag of coffee.

And there is lots of discussion on whether you're getting integrity because you need it or have it.

I'm just gonna say, I see they have one on here called Wisdom, and I need that.

Yeah, yeah.

The only one I.

I referred refuse to drink.

There is honesty because it's decaf.

Because it's decaf.

And I've told him that's just not honest of you.

And the other one is responsibility, which is half caffeinated, half decaf.

And I just don't think that's very responsible, you know, But.

But he has said the reason he's giving them these names.

I'll just.

I'll leave it this way.

Go listen to the Rap Report episode that we did on Coffee.

If.

Go back to.

Go to rap report rapport2ps rapperport.org scroll down to see the.

Where I asked the question about coffee.

It's.

It's in the.

In the show notes or in the title and I'll let you figure out why he said he.

He did that.

It was kind of a slap down.

I'll let you guys decide if it was a backhanded compliment or not.

In his answer to me on.

On the names, because it.

To me, it seemed like it was a little bit of a slap down in his answer.

Just saying.

But I'll let you guys listen for the enjoyment.

Nice to hang out with you for a little bit, but I've got to go.

Yeah, talk to you later, Drew.

Thanks for coming in.

I will see you.

So let's get to some of the things that Drew has starred here for us.

I'm just going to go from the top down, and after that, I'm going to have to start paying attention to the comments as well.

So that's the thing with Drew's.

Here we have that.

So Bradley says.

Yep.

It's so subtle, but off a degree.

So thank you for your work.

I think.

I think he was referring to some of the Hebrew.

This early on when you're talking about the Hebrew Israelites and the Hebrew roots movement, where it's.

I tell you what.

And thanks, Bradley.

I appreciate that.

You're exactly right that it can be so subtle because you're talking to someone that reads the same Bible, uses the same terminology, says they follow Jesus, speaks like a brother in Christ.

But then you start hearing some kind of weird stuff, and it becomes very subtle.

And honestly, that's why a lot of people get pulled into it, because.

Because it's so subtle.

Which, you know, every time I.

Every time I think about the way that this happens, it reminds me of the screwtape letters by C.S.

lewis, right?

Where the demon, the demon in charge is telling the young demon, hey, if you want to mislead Christians, don't go crazy.

Just get them off course by a little bit.

Get them to be comfortable with something else other than, you know, following God, or get them to trust just a little bit in something else.

So this is what we see a lot in Hebrew roots as well, I think, if I'm honest, I think even to the point where some of the folks following don't realize they miss the fact that they wandered off the path.

And so a number of folks, I have no idea on the percentages, but will quickly come to realize the error of their ways and come back.

I get messages all the time from people saying, oh, thank you.

I don't know how I believe that.

I was in it for six months or eight months or something, you know, and came back.

But some People, it's like.

It's like the analogy I use in Toryism is if you aim your gun and the barrel of your gun is off by the tiniest fraction of an inch, you're going to miss the target downrange by a mile.

And so this is how their theology works as well.

Yeah.

And this is something that, I mean, I've said for years.

No one wakes up and says, I want to be a heretic when I grow up.

Right, right.

It starts, I think, what happens with a lot of these people I've seen, like, with flat earth and things.

People are like, how could people believe this?

And so they start looking at it, really, to look.

To refute it, but they.

They get so involved in it and throw themselves in it so much that they're hearing the arguments over and over and over, and the arguments start to make sense.

Yeah.

And so what ends up happening is they.

They.

They, by hearing it over and over, they start to think, oh, this.

This actually has some validity to it.

Yeah.

And slowly, slowly they start to buy into it.

Okay.

So that's the thing that you have to recognize.

It's a slow progression that ends up happening.

Yeah, it is a slow.

And the other thing, too, is that once you've gone out there and made a public declaration and defended your views, it's very hard to change your mind and admit that you're wrong.

And, you know, it becomes a pride issue.

Yeah.

Path.

Right.

So let me put.

I'm gonna put these up just so you see some.

Some people that enjoy your work.

Willie is saying, I really enjoy listening to your channel.

We had.

Let's see.

So there was.

I know there was another one that.

Let's see.

Ah, here we go.

D says, I appreciate Rob's work in regards to Hebrew roots movement.

Really good stuff.

So that is so good.

I mean, this is amazing, the fact that I was kind of stumbled into this thing and God knew what he was doing, you know, and then there's so, so many folks out there who are being blessed by the work we're doing.

That's what it's all about.

Right.

It's all about helping the body of Christ see God.

And that's really.

I mean, you're an apologist.

You know, the goal of apologetics is really to clear away the falsehoods and the myths and let people see Christ as he is and God as he really is, as the Bible shows us.

And then from there, the Holy Spirit does all the work.

Yeah.

Right.

So our job is to just pull down those Those arguments that.

That try to raise themselves against God.

Yeah, and I.

I should.

I should have said this earlier by now, and I know we got someone backstage who's got some questions.

I've been waiting to see his camera, at least to see that it's not showing that he's got an image yet.

I know he put the question in the private chat.

So if you're ready to come in, May, put yourself on camera so that I know.

And so there we go.

So, folks, I'll let you know that if you want to.

If you like what you're hearing so far, please share this on social media so others know about it.

Because I can guarantee pretty much that any one of you listening has a friend, whether you realize it or not, you have a friend that is taught that is either in the Hebrew roots, knows someone in Hebrew roots, or starting to investigate Hebrew roots.

I say that because it just seems everybody is somehow.

I get a lot of questions because I'm Jewish.

That's why I get so many questions about this, because I'm an Israelite, that people ask me about it.

And I usually just and perhaps can attest to this.

The first thing that I do, in case you didn't know this, Rob, whenever anyone asks me about Hebrew roots, the first thing I do is I say, okay, go get the book Torahism before.

Before you even talk to me, go get that book, read it and.

And there won't be any need to ask me any more questions.

That's how I deal with it.

Yeah.

Especially the second edition covers a lot more stuff, but there's even still things that come up, up, you know.

Yeah.

Better mousetrap thing.

So.

Oh, here, here.

Someone's busting on you saying that you're returning to Lutheranism.

I guess maybe Simon says Luther did not have a mypillow.

Do you know that for sure?

How do you know?

All right, let me bring Brad in here.

Brad has a question for us out of Deuteronomy.

So, Brad, go ahead.

Yeah, let me look that passage up.

Hear me.

Okay, Andrew?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Yeah.

So my question was.

I'm trying to make sense of.

So just reading through it.

I think my question was in regards to, I guess, the punishment that was dealt out to the man or to the husband, and then I guess would be the husband and the wife.

So I guess I'm just curious because.

It'S a longer passage.

So let me put it up on screen.

Yeah.

And that way we could read it.

Let me remove the banner so that.

Starting at 13, you're saying, sure.

So, yeah, maybe if you read from 13 to 21 and then I can ask you the question, maybe that's probably a little bit easier.

Okay, so read from 13 to 21.

Is that's what I was going to do.

Okay, so it says here, or do you want to read it, Robert, or you want me to.

I'm still trying to pull it up.

All right, I'll read.

So this is in New American Standard, but because it's longer, I figured I'd put it up on screen so everyone can see.

It says, and by the way, I have to explain.

If you see the letter, the words in blue, that's just the way that I do my Bible in Logos, that means it.

It is a definitive article.

That's just what.

Just so I can look at it immediately.

Know what things are definitive articles.

So this is Deuteronomy, chapter 22, verse.

Starting in verse 30, 13 to 21.

If any man takes a wife and goes into her and then turns against her and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her and says, I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin, then the girl's father and her mother shall take the bra.

Take and bring out the evidence of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate.

The girls.

The girls.

Father shall say to the elders, I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her.

And behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, I do not find your daughter a virgin, but this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.

And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.

So.

So the elders of the city shall take the man and chastise him and chaste him, and they shall find him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl's father because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel, and she shall remain his wife.

He cannot divorce her all his days.

But if this charge is true, that the girl was found not a virgin, then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father's house, and the men of the city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot of the father's house thus you shall purge the.

The evil from among you.

All right, so that's the passage.

And what is your question?

My question is, why wasn't the man put to death?

For basically, or as far as if he made a false accusation and he, you know, was chastised.

Why.

Why wasn't the man given the sin or basically the punishment that was dealt to, you know, to his wife?

I guess that's my question as far as.

In regards to, you know, with Deuteronomy and the eye for eye, you know, being, you know, equal punishment.

Does that make sense?

Well, as far as.

So, yeah, it makes.

It makes sense.

Let me do a little correcting.

So eye for eye is the extent of the law, not the demand of the law, but the outer limits.

The outer limits.

It's a good way of saying.

But there is a law.

That.

There is a law that comes into play here.

Okay.

And it would take me a bit to find it, because it should be in, I believe, Leviticus.

But the.

The Jewish law states that if you try to charge someone with a crime or with something falsely.

Yes.

Then you must pay the punishment that they were owed.

Yes.

Right.

So my.

I guess that was kind of what I was.

Was.

Is that if she.

If he's falsely accusing her and he knows that Morris, that punishment would be death.

Would that not also apply to him as well as.

Is that.

That's kind of.

I guess my question.

If he's.

If he's falsely accusing her, then the law would say that he is to be put to death, if that's what the charge is.

So if the charge is death for her and he's found false, then he would be put to death.

Now, though that may not be listed here, we have that elsewhere as part of the law.

Okay.

I guess.

Yeah, that was my question.

As far as when they said, you know, behold, when they say basically where.

It's where he's proven that the.

That she was a virgin and they.

Chastise him, did they not act accordingly?

Right.

Or I guess.

I guess I'm just confused as to why, you know, they.

The elders chastised him and fined him as opposed to killing or.

As opposed to killing him or stoning him.

Well, it doesn't say that they won't stone him because that's what the law would demand.

Not here.

But they're finding them ahead of time to give that money to the.

To the girl's father if he stoned.

If he stoned to death, you know, then she remarries with all his possessions.

Well, or the kids would have.

If they have.

They wouldn't have kids at that point to take care of thinking that the.

Man in this situation was actually ended up being stoned to death.

I would assume that.

I mean, that would be the Law, if you falsely, if you falsely charged someone.

I wish this was the law in America.

We would have a lot better legal system.

I agree and I agree with that for sure.

I just, that was my confusion was just seeing that and seeing, you know, the false accusation.

And so are you.

Were you seeing that the woman faced death and the, and the man just faced a fine?

Exactly.

And I was just confused as to why he, you know, you know, if he would have known, like, you know, where it says, you know, he turned again, he turns against her, I would imagine he would have full well known that he was basically, you know, he would have known that if he's basically trying to have her, I guess, put to death.

I mean, knowing that consequence and knowing that if he's false, he should be, he would face the same punishment but into it as opposed to being just chastise and fined.

Well, see, yeah, because I mean, it does say here, right.

In the, in the context that she's going to remain his wife and he can't divorce her all his days, which would lead you to believe that he can, he could continue to live.

Right.

So the law would say that he would have to have his life taken.

So it may be an issue where there's some, you know, that maybe she has say in this or the father has say and what the punishment will be.

But this is, this is the minimum.

These are really difficult, ancient societal constructs to apply or to think about through our modern minds and becomes difficult.

One of the things I think that's probably at play here too is the idea that women back then were not really able to support themselves.

Right.

Yeah.

So without a man, they're lost forever.

So instead of killing the husband and saying, well, you know, now the death penalty and now the woman is without protection and without provision.

Instead, well, you know what?

Now you can never divorce her and you pay a fine and you're going to be publicly chastised and shamed.

And it was, remember, this was a very severe honor shame culture, even going all the way up into the New Testament.

So I think that's what's going on there.

Because this is so amazing to me.

Some of these are so.

Even in Leviticus, some of the stuff gets so what we might just call weird.

I mean, it's, there's some strange laws, but in my opinion, when you, when you kind of peel the layers back, you start to see, well, wait, this is about, this is about the sanctity of sex, of sexual activity.

This is about kindness.

This is about, you know, those Sorts of things.

Responsibility is basically saying there is no sex without responsibility.

It's such a thing does not exist in God's universe.

Yeah.

One thing I would recommend, if you haven't listened to it, there's a fabulous podcast called 40 Minutes in the Old Testament with Chad Bird and a couple.

One other guy at least.

And they go through some of these and they really break them down quite well.

So I would recommend looking for their episode on this particular.

And they're way past the Torah.

They're in the.

They're deep into the Old Testament now.

And what's that called?

40 minutes in the Old Testament.

So you might gather from that that each episode is about 40 minutes long.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

And he's a.

He's a Hebrew scholar, Chad is.

And I, I've.

I learned so much from.

About Leviticus from that, even after I've studied all kinds of commentaries.

It's really interesting.

Yeah, that sounds really good.

Yeah, I think.

Yeah.

I guess, like I said, my.

Just initially.

I guess for the initial, you know, my initial reaction to seeing was that was it.

Was it an equal.

Well, so equal justice for what was done.

I guess one of the things you have to understand with this, and, you know, Robert just mentioned a major part of it is.

And you'll see this when in Leviticus where someone, you know, Jewish guy is a slave and after seven years, he's going to be allowed to go free.

But if you marry someone and he can either be a slave for life or he can leave his wife there and his children as slaves and he can go free.

And people go that, oh, so, you know, it's like God is telling him he's got to divorce her.

Well, what it is, is that the master has a responsibility.

So we don't think about this in American culture because we don't think about our responsibility to others.

We only think our responsibility to ourself.

And that's why these passages are so hard to understand.

The reason the master.

The master has a responsibility to care for the slave's wife and children.

And so the whole idea there is that you have this guy who's.

He can't handle his finances.

That's how he became a slave.

And so the law is saying, hey, because you've already proven yourself that you're not responsible with money, this master doesn't put this woman and children into this guy's care because he's not responsible.

So here what you have is a case where, you know, let's back up before, you know, like everything Robert Said I would agree with and would, would have said, but back up and say, well, why would the guy make this claim in the first place?

It's their wedding night.

And so it's, it's something that happened in that, on that wedding night in that bedroom that he wasn't satisfied with.

And he makes this claim, right.

And he's shaming her.

And so what is he, what's he looking to do?

He's looking to divorce her, find a way out of this marriage and go marry someone else.

But now she's, she's now marked as someone who is not a virgin.

And it's going to be very hard for her to remarry and she's going to have no way to care for herself.

Now that responsibility is going to be on the father to care for her for the rest of her days.

And so the charge on him is now that he can't marry anyone else, he has to care for her and take care of her because he shamed her.

And that's not point about the communal responsibility.

We miss that a lot in, especially in America, we're so ruggedly individualistic, you know, and I think that's a big cultural disconnect from especially the, the Old Testament, the Torah, but even, even first century, it was.

It's a very communal culture, you know.

Right.

So you so kind of going back to what you said, Andrew, about as far as the, you know, with the false, with, you know, false accusation and basically whatever was accused of.

So like this trying to, I guess, trying to mesh the two and stuff, we're saying that doesn't necessarily.

This is maybe a different.

I would, I would say that either could be.

I mean, the law is clear on what to do when you bring a charge to, you know, to the court with someone.

Right.

And so could that be in play?

Yes, I think they could charge that the father, you know, would have the right to make that charge.

So.

But in this, I think so what you see there is, you have a minimum of what he must do.

You know, just like we said, you know, as Robert said, you know, the, the eye for the eye is kind of the maximum.

And I forget what word you use now.

And it was good.

Outer Limits.

Yeah.

So.

So if that's the Outer Limits, this is now, you know, like a minimum.

I would see.

Okay, so there's.

Are you saying that there is actually there can be flexibility depending on the person or is it like, I guess, or in the situation or.

I mean, the only thing I would think.

And, and is it could be an issue of this is not taken to the court.

He's bringing her to the father versus the court.

Maybe that would have play into it.

And there, I think there was flexibility too.

I mean, we see that with, with Moses and having to appoint the 70 elders and people continually coming with questions and they're not sure, you know, what to do, so they have to seek the Lord.

And I think a lot of times they've got, like, if you look at all of the laws, there's so many things missing.

There's so many specific case details that aren't addressed.

So they needed to use their best judgment and say, okay, well, based on the spirit, so to speak, of the Torah, what God values, what do we do in this situation?

Yeah, okay.

So I hope that helps.

Yeah, yeah, no, that does.

Yeah.

I was just kind of seeking clarification.

Just wanted to make sure that I was not missing or I was.

If I was missing something or.

Because I'm, you know, I just reading it.

I.

I just needed some clarification on it just to make sure what if I was.

What I was reading was correct.

All right.

And, and understand.

So, yeah.

All right, good.

I'll put you backstage.

If you have another question, just let me know in the private chat.

All right, I'm going to bring Eric in.

Eric, you have a question for us?

Yes, sir, I do have a question.

It's in regards to Dr.

Solberg posted on his community post, I think it was yesterday, where you were talking about Hebrew 6.

Oh, yeah.

I knew that would get some interest, some eyebrows raised.

Yeah, it's.

It's a passage I've definitely struggled with myself.

Yeah, I would just want to know what your answer.

And I'm not trying to like, do a gotcha thing, but in regards to that, I understand your argument, but what would you say to Hebrews 3:14, where it says, we've only come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our confidence firm to the end.

Yeah.

So, Robert, if you could, for folks like myself who didn't read the blog article and Eric, I'm just going to mute you just because there's some background noise there.

Unmute yourself if you want to come back in.

Ask more.

But if you could just explain the article, what it was about.

It was actually a little post.

It wasn't even an article.

Pull it up and I can read it to you real quick.

So we all know what we're talking about.

Basically, it came from.

We're going through.

So on my channel, we've got two Bible study series that are apologetic.

One was all the way through Galatians.

That one's done.

The other one is we're going through Hebrews.

And so this was actually pulled from our episode we did on Hebrews 6.

And it's the old once saved, always saved.

So that always gets people talking.

Let's see.

So the one yesterday was.

There's a quote that says Hebrews, oops, let me open this up.

And this is the quote of mine from that episode.

The majority of scholars read the passage of Hebrews 6, 4, 6, and we can read that in a second as a description of genuine Christians.

It seems unlikely the author would have used all these descriptors if he was merely trying to describe false believers.

So let me open up Hebrews 6:4 through 6.

I'll read it.

And this is in the ESV says this for it is impossible.

Let me actually give you a little context.

So Hebrews is the author's writing to Jewish believers in Jesus who are being tempted to return to their the Judaism that they were raised in because they're getting all kinds of flack from their Jewish brothers and sisters because they believe in Jesus from the Romans, because Christianity was illegal.

And the author of Hebrews is now saying, look, hold fast to your faith because Jesus is superior over everything else you might want to put your faith in, right?

And so when we get to this little.

He's just starting at the beginning of chapter five, this huge description of Jesus as a high priest, and he interrupts himself to basically do this little passage that we're a little sidebar passage about holding fast to your faith.

It's really about apostasy.

So the question is, is it possible to lose your faith?

Is it possible to really apostatize for a real Christian to walk away?

And so this passage says this.

We're in Hebrews 6, verses 4 through 6.

The author says, for it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened.

And listen to all these descriptors who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift and have shared in the Holy Spirit and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the ages to come and then have fallen away.

And this is a weird run on sentence.

So basically he's saying, for it is impossible for those people who have all these things to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

So the idea is, so how do we get around this thing of once saved, always saved.

You know, Jesus says, no one can pluck you from my hand.

And, you know, I mean, this is the really, what do they call it, sticky wicket, as they say, over the pond, across the pond.

And so the question is, first of all, is he describing actual genuine believers?

Right.

Because what's the reformed saying?

If you believe, you'll never.

Your faith will never fail.

I can't remember how it goes, but if you, if you walk, if you believe, you'll never walk away from God.

If you walk away from God, you never really believed.

I'm paraphrasing.

I don't remember the thing.

But.

So the idea is, well, if that's the case, how can you say it's impossible to restore them again to repentance?

That someone would have been a real believer, fallen away and not.

He's not only saying they could fall away, he seems to be saying they can't even be restored.

So now we have this huge theological sticky wicket and we have to say, well, what does that mean?

Is he maybe not talking about real believers?

Maybe he's talking about false believers, people who professed with their mouth but never really gave their heart to Jesus.

And my quote was saying, well, look at.

How would you describe someone who has tasted the heavenly gift shared in the Holy Spirit, tasted the goodness of the word of God?

It's hard to believe that he would be talking about inauthentic believers with those kinds of descriptions.

You know what I mean?

So my point was that in my commentary research and my research on that, on that passage, it doesn't seem likely that he was talking about people who were.

Didn't quite really believe.

It seems to me like that he's talking about real Christians, real believers.

And so then the question becomes, if they're real believers and they've fallen away, I guess A, can they fall away?

And then B, if they have fallen away, is he really honestly saying, you can't be restored?

And so that's.

That's kind of.

I just set the table.

But so now what was the question?

I was saying in regards to how would you line that up with Hebrews 3:14, where it says, you've only come to sharing Christ if you hold your confidence firm to the end, Right?

So it's giving kind of a thing there where it's saying, look, if you don't hold on all the way to the end, you've never come to Sharon in the first place.

And I think that's where that one save, always save thing Kind of comes in.

Yeah, yeah.

So forgive me, because this might be unsatisfying too, but as a professor, this is my favorite thing to do in the classroom is to answer a question with a question there.

Actually, I'll try to make a statement.

So a couple things bother me or, you know, ruffle my feathers because, I mean, I don't know everything.

I don't.

I'm not perfect and I don't have all the answers.

And so I struggle with this a lot myself.

So one of the things that I think about in Hebrews and 3:14 is exactly one of those verses, but it's all over.

Hold fast to your faith is kind of his recurring theme.

Why would he say, hold fast to your faith?

Why would Paul say, finish the race strong?

Why would the New Testament urge and encourage believers to hold fast and not give up and weary, not in good doing and all these things if it wasn't actually possible for you to turn away, for you to give up your salvation?

Right.

And that becomes very difficult because now you have the question, well, Jesus does say, you know, no one will snatch them from my hand.

All the people the Father gives to me I will save, basically.

And we.

And then it also calls Jesus the author and finisher of our faith as well.

Right, exactly.

So is our faith, do we really have any autonomy or any ability to willfully choose not to follow him once we've been indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit?

And, and I'm just gonna, I'll tell you right now, I don't have a, A clean cut answer for that.

One of the things.

Can I give you a possible answer that I've heard?

Yeah.

I've heard it described as that in the Hebrew 6, when he's doing that, he's actually giving ended up.

What do they call it?

What is it now that I'm trying to say?

It's basically an argument of reductio ad absurdum.

There you go.

One of those arguments.

Sure.

Basically saying that, you know, Christ can only be crucified once, so if it was even possible for you to be able to leave, you couldn't come back because they're not going to crucify Jesus again.

Right.

And he's basically described to me, is that, okay, this is a letter to the Hebrews.

They're constantly thinking they need to repent and be saved.

And he's saying, no, go beyond the elementary teachings.

You cannot be lost, because even if you could be lost, you can't come back.

So that's why he's saying, go on to maturity, move past the basics.

So, yeah, I mean, there's.

There's some.

I think there's some validity to that.

I'm actually pulling up a.

An article.

So.

But, so here's the thing I.

That I figured out when we were going through it, when we were going through this passage on our.

On our channel, One of the things that I, that I took away that I think is significant is that this whole section is really a hypothetical.

He's not saying you have fallen away and you can't be restored.

He's basically, it's a warning.

I mean, there's a.

There's five or six exhortations in that.

In that whole epistle, he's saying, if you fall away, like, don't do it, because if you do, this is the, this is the thing that you'll face.

You won't be able to be restored to repentance.

And what are the reasons for that?

We get into that a little bit in that episode, but the idea that maybe it is arguing to the point of absurdity for the reason that he's saying, look, this is how ridiculous it would be that if you fell away, you would be crucifying Christ a second time and you couldn't come back.

So I see some validity in that approach.

So let me give you a couple resources as well.

First is, if you really want to dig into Hebrews, I'd highly recommend Pastor Jim Osmond from Kootenay Community Church in Kootenay, Idaho.

He just finished up preaching through the book of Hebrews and does some of the best work that I've heard on it.

I'm begging him to put it into a commentary.

He's yet to take me up on that because he's got too many other books.

He's working on another.

I wrote an article on this passage.

I did put it in the link here, but I'll have it in the show notes for the podcast version.

But if you go to strivingforeternity.org and just type in the search, just search Hebrews 6.

That's all you got to put in.

And you'll get an article called can you lose your salvation?

Now, I want to kind of give.

Gloss over this and just.

I want to just give it, explain it quickly.

But I don't want to read the whole thing before I do.

I do want to.

First.

When it comes to can you lose your salvation?

The question becomes, when were.

When were our sins paid for and how much were paid?

So if we go to Colossians chapter 2, 13 and 14.

This is what it says.

When you were dead in your trespass transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive together with him having forgiven us all our transgressions.

Okay, so all of them having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of the decrees against us which were hostility toward us so great, that means all of our sin was paid when.

Well, he goes on to say, and he has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

So what I would say is that we can't lose our salvation because to lose our salvation would say that it was all paid at the cross.

And then they're not paid, right, because of something we did.

Well, if all of our sins were paid at the cross, they were all paid before we were born in time.

Now I'm gonna, I'm gonna say, and maybe I'm not a professor, but I'm gonna do something.

Maybe as unsatisfactory is what Rob did.

But one of the things, when we come to passage, and I think one reason, and Robert, this may answer some of what you were saying you're struggling with.

But I think some of the times we have to deal with the fact that we think, you know, chronologically within time, event based thinking where something happens and then another thing happens.

And so we don't have a complete thinking.

We're not omniscient, we're not eternal, but God is.

And so there's things in the mind of God that he could say with an absoluteness because he knows even before it happened.

So he could say that my sin was nailed at the cross before it happened.

Okay, so to the mind of God, it's a done deal.

To the mind of Andrew, I could fall away.

Okay, so that's one thing.

Just we have to keep in mind, this is very important when we talk.

If you end up getting into the Calvinism, Arminianism debate, a lot of the passages people will struggle with is because, you know, they want to think about it within human thinking.

And they'll take a passage where, you know, God will say before the foundation of the world, you know, I elected you before the foundation of the world.

Well, there was no before anything with God.

So when he's saying that, he's not speaking in his mind but for us.

So he's saying something like, hey, this is me.

For me, the, the best way of saying you had nothing to do with your salvation.

So the Hebrews 6 passage, as Robert said, there's, there's five things that are mentioned here.

And I put this in the blog article.

You know, can you lose your salvation?

So just go to strivingforturney.org type in the search Hebrews, Hebrews 6.

It's one of the first articles that came up for me at least.

So it mentions, once you've been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift shared in the Holy Spirit, tasted the goodness and the word of God, and fifthly, tasted the powers of the age to come.

So these are the things that people will say.

As Robert said, he believes that this is speaking to a believer.

Now there's.

I end up pointing out that there's three possibilities of it.

One, as Robert said, genuine believers that fall away from grace due to some sin and they lose their salvation.

Another could be Jewish people who had the truth as God's chosen people.

That would be fitting with the context that these are Jewish people who were enlightened because they had the truth of Scripture and they walked away from that.

A third is people who are part of the local congregation of believers who were never saved, but they enjoyed the benefits.

Okay.

And that's what I think is what we see in.

I'll bring this up is 1st John 2:19.

It says, for they went out from us, but were never really of us.

For if they had been of us, they would have remained with us, but they went out so that it would be shown that they were not really of us.

And I look at that passage, which is a clear teaching.

And so we always interpret the more difficult from the clear.

So first John 2:19 says that anyone who leaves the congregation walks out, you know, denies Christ having once saying they accepted Christ.

This passage says that they were never of us.

Okay.

And they're leaving is the exposing of that.

And so as I do, you see.

That as a universal thing, not just specific to the group that John's talking about there?

Yeah, I think that this is.

I think that the way John is seeing it, it's universal because he's dealing with people who are in his thing, different than Hebrews.

He's dealing with Gnostics.

Right.

He's dealing with people who are in the church with a false teaching.

And so I think it's people in the church who are then leaving and walking away.

And when I look at it, I look at a total and, you know, you and I may not be in agreement.

You know, there was a question that said they wanted me.

They wanted you to explain how.

More about how you went back to Lutheranism.

But so, you know, and this could be where some of it is.

But I think that when we look at what salvation is, a work of God, he says he won't let us go.

So how could we if we didn't save ourselves?

How could we lose our salvation?

How could we if God is not going to let us go?

You know, in Romans 8 he's making it clear there's nothing that can separate you from the love of God.

And he goes through and explains, you know, visible, invisible, you know, he goes every extreme to say there's nothing.

Yeah, pretty comprehensive list.

It's a.

And that's the whole purpose of it is to be comprehensive.

So when you look at that, he's, he's saying there's nothing we could do.

So people will say, well, there's nothing God will do, but we could do it.

But we're not stronger than God if he's, if he's giving every example.

So I think you, the nature of salvation is that once we, once God regenerates us, we are changed, we can't change back.

And so how do we now reconcile with Hebrews?

Now I'm going to state I said this earlier, you interpret the easier to understand.

That's what interprets the harder passages.

Right.

Hebrews is a difficult book to understand.

If you do not understand Leviticus, you will have a harder time with Hebrews.

Yeah, true.

Okay.

And so looking at that, if I start with the easier passages, the easier passages make it clear that salvation is son, God does that we can't lose it.

So how do I reconcile that with this?

And that's what the article goes through to try to explain.

And really what I'm trying to go through is to say if the scripture, the clear passages are teaching that we can't lose the salvation, then this can't be.

And first John 2:19 says that the only those that were never saved leave us.

If I take those two clear passages now, I have to bring that into this to say, well, these can't be believers.

So what is it that they tasted?

You know, I mean it's as Robert said, it's very clear they were once enlightened.

They tasted the heavenly gift they shared in the spirit.

I think that these are people who either whether Jewish or in the church, they had the word of God, they had the preaching, they had some light of God's word in their life.

They claim they followed it but then left it.

And so Jesus spent a lot of his time dealing with the Jewish self righteousness of the Jewish leaders.

And so I could see A lot of that even maybe within, you know, that I'm going to give.

We did all these things in your name and Jesus says, I never knew you.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And I think that I'm going to give away, Robert, a little bit of my view.

Don't beat me up.

But what Paul is saying here in this sermon that we know is the book of Hebrews.

No, I don't think he wrote it.

I think he preached it.

Okay.

I think I've heard that theory recently.

Yeah.

And then it was recorded by somebody else and I, I actually found it quite compelling.

I, that I have.

So a friend of mine, Tom Buck, did his dissertation on Hebrews, on who wrote Hebrews.

And I talked at length with him and actually had him on the podcast to discuss it.

And I think a very compelling argument.

I, I actually, that is where I, I land now that it really satisfies everything that this is a sermon that he preached.

And someone wrote it down too, by the way.

Yeah, yeah.

See we're in, in like mind there can't be, can't be dogmatic.

But my pet theory was always Apollo's.

That's who I like too, until, until just recently.

Yeah, it's a very compelling argument.

Yeah.

So, so I think that, you know, if, if this is a sermon by Paul, he, he would have understood a lot of the self righteousness that was in Judaism.

Sure.

And, and I can, I can, I.

Like where you're going with this, but I, the thing that I think is missing, if I could gently push back on my good buddy.

Oh, go for it.

I gently push back on you.

So hypothetical sense too.

So I don't think we're actually talking about what really happened and what people really did.

I think he says, you know, if this happens, then this wouldn't be possible.

So the way that, the way that I ultimately ended up breaking it down, I actually just pulled up my statement from that article that I did.

I interpret this passage as the author of Hebrews, perhaps Paul, in a sermon, basically issuing a warning about a horrible outcome.

Right.

So he's basically saying, if you willingly turn your back on the gospel and reject the idea of salvation through faith in Jesus and instead return to your dead works and your law keeping, it's going to be almost impossible for you to be restored.

So don't do it.

Don't go down that road.

I feel like that's kind of what he's saying.

So he's not even getting really into the once saved, always saved.

He's basically just saying, don't go down that road.

Don't test it.

You know.

Yeah, that is.

That's a.

I'm just looking at it now and seeing that and saying.

Yeah, you know, because that's the James 2 passage.

Right.

Where people go, you know, he's saying, if you say you can do.

And people forget verse 14, they started verse 15, and ignore the question.

Well, he's saying, if you have faith without works, you know, what kind of faith is that?

And so because.

Yeah.

In verse three says, and this we will do if God permits, for in the case of those who were once.

So it could be the possibility he's giving.

Because he is talking even in verse two, about the eternal judgment.

Yeah, right.

Verse one is leaving the elementary things, the teachings of Christ press on to maturity, laying aside a foundation of repentance from dead works to a faith toward God.

Yeah.

So the other thing that's interesting in this phrase too is when he talks about restoring, he doesn't say restore to salvation.

He says restore to repentance.

And so that's a really interesting phrase or interesting way to put it.

And it kind of.

To me, that threw me in.

Threw me for a loop for a while.

Yeah.

No, I think that there's.

From looking at the text, cursory view, I think you have a good point with it, that it may be not addressing an absolute, but a hypothetical.

Yeah.

And that.

And then it's there for a point of.

The point of illustrating what he's saying here about, you know, the judgment.

Like, this is going to be worse for you if you're going to turn back to the dead works.

Yeah.

And that's where we get into that whole idea of sort of hyperbole.

And he's talking about crucifying Jesus again.

You know, he's using that sort of extreme to really drive his point home.

You know, it wouldn't literally be re.

Crucifying Christ, obviously, but.

Yeah, that's interesting.

I love this.

This is really.

Yeah.

And you know, it's.

I gotta read your article now.

Yeah.

And.

And it's interesting because as you go on, you know, we usually just deal with verses four to six.

But, you know, you have a purpose statement right there in verse seven.

So looking at.

Right.

So.

So verse six says, and then.

Then they form, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify themselves to the Son of God and put him to open shame.

For the ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it, brings forth vegetation useful for those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives the blessing of God, but it yields thorns and thistles.

It's.

It is worthless and close to being a curse, and it ends up being burned.

So he's now returning back to what he's addressing there earlier in, in verse 1 and 2 about the judgment.

Yeah, it's.

And the two sides of it that'll.

Happen to the land.

Yeah, yeah.

So, no, I think, I think you're making a really good point with that.

So.

So I think, I think, you know, I may be agreeing with you on that one.

All right, you know, and look, this is the thing, folks.

You know, as, as Robert said, right.

We don't know everything.

Anyone that tells you that their.

Their theology is 100% perfect doesn't know what they don't know.

Yeah.

Okay.

All of our theology has problems.

We don't know where or otherwise we would change.

Right.

I mean, I can't imagine why someone that's, you know, in the biblical view of Baptist would go Lutheran.

But some do.

I mean.

No, no.

I mean.

Right.

So we're gonna.

We all have differences, and we're going to sit at the feet of Christ.

He's going to correct us all.

But one thing that I, I want people listening to this discussion to pick up on is the fact that how do we address these things?

Right?

As Eric came in here, Robert had a position.

I'm hearing it, I'm thinking, I'm disagreeing with it, I'm voicing.

He's hearing, having disagreement.

And yet as we work through it, we go, you know, we come to agreement.

Why?

Because we're both looking at the text of Scripture.

We're not holding our theology as an idol.

We're saying, what does the word of God say?

And we can be convinced by the word of God.

Right?

And.

And that's how all of us need to be, especially when we do apologetics.

Because, man, when you're, when you're defending the faith, you can have the tendency that you want to defend it to a fault.

Right?

I mean, for folks who may be new and don't understand apology live, we're here not only to do apologetics, but to teach it.

And that's why, like, if you see us, sometimes we get someone in, we have a debate.

I may stop a debate in the middle to explain to you as the audience why I ask questions.

I ask, which is always fun when I, when I point out that I'm asking someone a question, and then they continue to make the same mistake that I just pointed out to the AUDIENCE he's making and they continue doing it.

It's just classic to see.

But we have to realize when we do apologetics, we could get to the point where we're defending something to a fault.

Let me give an example that may resonate with people now that we've passed 2020 in the three letter agencies in the government.

What you have is a view that we'd have of defending the agency.

Agency.

And so we argue to defend the.

Like we can't allow the agency to look bad.

As if somehow the agencies.

And this is true with all the agencies that I worked with, as if, like somehow, you know, if there's anything we get wrong, it's a problem and like the whole agency is going to fall apart.

And it's actually, you see this with pastors that try to make it look like they don't sin.

When you do that, you actually expose, you break down because you so try to defend a sinless like that you're perfectly sinless that you end up exposing sin and pride.

People can get so defensive where they're defending something.

And it's as if, and Robert mentioned this earlier with the idea.

It's hard to.

When you get into Hebrew roots or any of this, it's hard to admit you're wrong because then it's like, well, now you're going to think everything is wrong, that Christianity is wrong.

And this is what we have to be careful of as apologists, that we are not defending what we believe is the faith to the point of error.

We have to defend the truth of God's word, but we have to be able to be convinced by God's Word.

Yeah.

We have to be open to, open to correction if God's word says something different.

And that can be hard.

Can be.

Is.

Yeah, always.

And you get into.

I don't know about you, but I agree.

I get into the role of.

I want to win this argument.

Yes.

Wait a second.

I got to check myself.

You know, it's like, no, this isn't about winning an argument.

I want to find out what the, what the scripture says on this.

And that's.

It does two things for me.

Number one, like you just talked about, it puts scripture as the authority over the conversation.

We're both working towards the same end is a better understanding of what scripture says.

And because that's the goal.

Number two, in my, in my opinion, it makes me less dogmatic over any particular issue.

So to say something's entirely 100% wrong.

100%.

You know, that's.

That's false or whatever.

Some things you can say that obviously.

But I'm thinking in general where we've got disagreements between certain things.

Baptists and Lutherans, we might say, since that keeps coming up.

But the idea isn't that I have it right, and you're a heretic that's going to burn in hell.

That's.

Yeah.

That, that sort of divisive approach just doesn't help anybody.

There's gonna be some things that are clear.

Right.

Jesus is God.

That's true.

And we're gonna die.

You've got your kind of litmus test.

Yeah, yeah, for sure.

You've got your primary.

Primary objectives.

Primary.

What would you call those?

Well, there's primary, secondary, tertiary.

But I would, I would put them in the category of.

I mean, I, I like to put them as this.

There are beliefs, those things I'm willing to die for.

Jesus is God.

The only means of salvation is through Christ.

Things like that.

There is a God, he has spoken.

Right.

Those are beliefs, something I'm willing to die for.

Things that are so true, you know, there is no backing down.

And those are going to be things that all the, all Christians that are genuine Christians would end up holding to.

Then there's convictions.

Those are the secondary things, things I feel very strongly about.

I'll, I'll debate it.

I'll argue over it.

I'll feel strongly whether I'll break friendship over it or not.

Maybe, maybe, maybe not.

But there's going to be things like, you know, you know, that I'll put in.

A secondary issue is going to be things like, well, we are talking.

Can you lose yourself?

Salvation, Calvinism, Arminianism, some of those debates that people would have gifts continuing or not.

I, I would look at those things unimportant.

They're not unimportant, but they're very strong convictions.

And I'll debate it and argue over it.

But while I break, you know, you know, is it worth breaking relations over?

Probably not.

Right.

You know, but.

And then the third category would be preferences.

These are the tertiary issues.

These are going to be, you know, what type of music you sing in church?

Do you use a hymnal or just psalms?

Right, those.

I'm not breaking fellowship.

Those.

I'm just going, okay, you know, so.

What the theologians call adiaphora, matters of indifference.

Yeah.

Paul talks about in Romans 14.

Yeah.

So with that, you know, I know we're at the, we're a little bit past the 10 o'clock time, so I want to give you a chance to.

And I know we had a bunch of questions that people were asking.

How could people get in touch with you, Robert, so that they might be able to ask you some questions or follow your YouTube channel, follow what you're doing.

Because, you know, like, at least I could say, you know, I knew you before you were so famous, you know, you were.

You were still working on your dissertation.

You.

I think tourism had just come out, you know.

Yeah, it was pretty new when we last got together.

Yep.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I'm.

The Biblical Roots is the best way to get a hold of me on, you know, at the Biblical Roots.

You'll find me on the socials there.

Thebiblicalroots.org There's a contact form there if you want to get ahold of me.

I try to respond to everybody, except I get some knuckleheads that I don't.

But any legitimate questions, I love that.

I also love when people reach out to me and say, I'm dealing with this particular teacher or teaching.

A lot of the stuff that we do on our channel, we actually engage with specific teachings from folks and say, test.

It basically tested against scriptures.

Does this hold water?

Where are they right?

Where are they wrong?

And I'll admit both.

But.

But what?

A lot of what I get, it's not like just.

I don't.

I don't want to walk around picking fights, but if people are coming to me saying, I have a need, this teacher keeps telling me something, and I don't understand how that could be true.

Rob, can you look at that?

Those are the types of things we put out lots of videos based on viewer recommendations or even just viewer questions.

That's.

That's super important part of what our ministry does.

So, yeah, reach out to me in any of those.

In any of those areas.

My personal, personal blog is rlsolberg.com you can also find all my links there as well.

But yeah, YouTube's probably the.

The focus of most of our work as far as like the hub of activity.

But we're also on Facebook, Insta, and I try Tick Tock.

I get weird results on that one.

Yeah, I'm too old.

Yeah, Well, I don't.

I don't do TikTok for political reasons.

I.

My background, cyber security.

I knew, I knew when it came out what was.

And I won't.

I just won't touch it.

And I mean, it took.

It took Trump for it to finally be realized that it was.

I was saying it for years before Trump, that it was just, you know, it was put out by the Chinese to, you know, both spy on Americans and, you know, indoctrinate Americans.

But yeah, yeah.

Well, hopefully they're spying on me and they're learning a little about the gospel.

Yeah.

Not their intention, but I'm sure that happens.

So you never know.

You never know.

Too careful of the videos you watch.

Well, I want to thank you for coming in.

I hope, folks, if you, if you enjoyed this that you share with others.

It does help others to hear about Robert and what he's doing.

Also about this show, what we're doing next week, we're going to have one of the regulars who watches behind the scenes, Chuck.

If you remember, he was on with Godless Grandma who we had on this show some time ago and he got on her program.

She won't let me on her program.

If you watched when she was on with me, you know why she won't have me on hers.

You saw her break down at the end.

Very upset with truth being shined the light on her.

But be careful the statements you make.

I'll just say she made statements and then wanted to put her statements on me as if I made them.

Yeah.

So we're going to talk about Godless Grandma.

So you know, Kelly, if you're listening, if you're watching, you're welcome to join us next week and come back in.

I doubt you will because you already ran scared once.

So.

But we'd, we'd love to have you on.

So with that, I want to encourage you guys if you, I would just say this.

If you haven't gotten the book tourism, I would encourage you to go out and order two copies right now.

There's a reason you need two copies.

One is for you and one is for the friend that is going to ask you about Hebrew roots because that friend isn't going to return the copy.

I know this from experience.

Hence I have the copy that I have the one copy I never got back.

I have the copy I bought as the replacement and had to put my notes in.

And then I have the one on Kindle.

I got to send you one.

Okay.

Yeah, shoot me your.

Shoot me your mailing address.

I'll send you one.

Andy, I appreciate it.

So, folks, get.

Go out and buy two copies of Tourism.

It is by R.L.

solberg and I'm very glad to have you back on.

We got it.

We got to have you back more often.

I miss these conversations and, you know, and talking with you because I really, I always love talking with you.

Yeah, same.

So, folks, until next week, just remember to strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of God.

And we'll see you next week.