• Help Spread the Fire
  • Click here to read Dr. Brown's latest article
  • Dr. Brown Answers Your Questions and Catches Up on the News

    April 23, 2012 | 52 Comments

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

    [Download MP3]

    A special Monday edition of “You’ve got questions, we’ve got answers,” and a report on the latest moral insanity.

     

    Hour 1:

     

    Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: If we can’t trust God, who can we trust? If we can’t put our trust in God to bring us to the place He wants us to be and cause us to fulfill the destiny He has put within us, then what’s the purpose of life?


    Hour 2:

     

    Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: If we don’t speak up, stand up, speak out, or do what is right, if things degenerate around us, we have ourselves to blame!

     

    SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!

    The Mysterious Prophecy of Isaiah 53 (DVD, 2 1/2 Hours of Teaching)
    For Only $17 Postage Paid! 
    Call 1-800-278-9978 or order online!
    Other Resources:

    Dr. Brown Answers Your Questions!

    Insights on Current Events With Dr. Brown!

    A Time For Holy Fire: Are you fed up with Christianity as you know it? Does your heart long for something more? Have you had it with the same old religious cycle? Then this book is for you. Revival is our only hope—yet there is hope for revival!

    -

    How Saved Are We? by Dr. Brown:  This unsettling book challenges us to ask ourselves what kind of born-again experience we have had if it calls for almost no personal sacrifice, produces virtually no separation from the world, and breeds practically no hatred of sin.

     

    Spread the Word:
    • E-mail this story to a friend!
    • Facebook
    • Digg
    • del.icio.us
    • Mixx
    • MySpace
    • Technorati
    • Sphinn
    • StumbleUpon
    • TwitThis

    Comments

    52 Responses to “Dr. Brown Answers Your Questions and Catches Up on the News”

    1. ken
      April 23rd, 2012 @ 1:39 pm

      The lord said it all in Romans 1:18-32 on the issue on homosexuality, end of story.

    2. ron david metcalf
      April 24th, 2012 @ 7:19 pm

      Dear Friends,

      I’d love to hear your feedback on my latest Townhall article entitled Do You Support “Anyone But Obama”?. Send me a note with your thoughts once you have a chance to read it.

      I read a couple of the townhall blogs, & thought, ‘this isn’t the place.’

      So here goes:

      The Jews didn’t like Cyrus (Koresh) either, but he was GOD’s plan of restoration. What are you thinking? Don’t you get the FRC updates?

      4 more years of Obama, and you could end up in a retraining detention camp. With Romney, at least we have a chance.

      Your pals are grumbling because the Catholic didn’t win; but that would have meant more trouble for Israel, as with George W.B. LDS may be as close to outward freemasonry that we will ever see, but they DO have a mandate to build the Third Temple in Jerusalem. That’s why Mike Evans sided with Glenn Beck while you were still deciding where your loyalties lie: wiuth Israel, or you old friends?

      You asked for it. This is much more kind than most of the townhall comments, I’ sure.

      In Jesus’ love and name, Ron David Metcalf

    3. Boris
      April 24th, 2012 @ 9:13 pm

      On the show today Dr. Brown discussed various translations of the Bible. He said that translators do not purposely distort what the original text really said. I disagree. For the last century or so the English Bible has been undergoing what we could call a Hollywood Makeover. I’ll use one particular verse to demonstrate what I mean.

      “For bodily exercise profiteth little; but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.” – 1Tim 4:8 KJV

      The King James Version of the Bible clearly says that exercise is of little profit especially when compared to godliness. This is an accurate rendering of the original Greek. I have the UBS Fourth Edition Greek New Testament and I read Koine Greek. My word for word wooden translation of this passage would be:

      “And for of body exercise towards little it is profitable…” – Greek New Testament

      The King James Version of the Bible is a fairly accurate wooden rendering of the Greek New Testament. Now over the last century or so the Bible has undergone what we could call a “Hollywood makeover.” Unicorns became oxen, satyrs (a half-man, half-horse) are now called wild goats, dragons were renamed hyenas and this statement about exercise being of little value has been tampered with as well:

      “For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come.” – NLJV

      Notice how the NKJV has retranslated the passage to say that exercise is now of “a little” value or profit. This is VERY important. The addition of the word “a” the indefinite article makes all the difference and makes it seem like the Bible now says exercise is of a little profit. For years Christians have complained that the Jehovah’s Witnesses incorrectly inserted the word “a” in the beginning of John’s Gospel in their Bible the New World Translation. So it says that Jesus is “a god” instead of God. However in Ancient Greek there is no indefinite article and we have to insert it where it goes when we translate Greek to English. The JW’s do this correctly; they have the right translation. (Look, I don’t want to agree with them any more than you do but they’re right about this.) But when the “a” is added to this NKJV passage of 1Timothy about exercise it doesn’t belong there. It’s part of the Bible’s “Hollywood Makeover” which is being done to modernize the Bible and make it seem less absurd. Let’s see how the NIV translates this passage:

      “For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.” – NIV

      Now exercise according to the Bible is not just of “a little” profit but it is of “some value.” Look at this very carefully. Still don’t believe in evolution? The Bible is evolving right before your very eyes! God’s unchanging word is changing! It’s no wonder there are so many people who insist on sticking with the King James Version of the Bible. Look at how the New Living Translation translates this passage:

      “Physical training is good, but training for godliness is much better, promising benefits in this life and in the life to come. – NLT

      Now physical training is “good” according to the Bible! We’ve gone from of “little” profit to “a little profit” to “some value” to “good” in only about only forty years of this “Hollywood makeover” of the Bible. We all know physical exercise is good for us. Apparently whoever wrote 1Timothy was a bit unaware of the value of exercise. This might make it seem as though the Bible isn’t so divinely inspired especially when we read about other things like cockatrices, fiery serpents, satyrs, dragons, witches, etc. The passages of “scripture” that mention these things have been dishonestly removed, rewritten or edited beyond recognition from their original translation in the King James. So what do you think modern translations of the Bible will look like in the near future as translators try to get the Bible more in line with modern science? I can just see it now: “In the beginning, God set Darwinian Evolution in motion… and
      saw that it was good.” – New Universal Bible, 2020.

      Ron David Metcalf

      With Obama you could end up in a retraining detention camp? Do you know what fear mongering is by any chance? With Romney, at least we have a chance? A chance to do what exactly? Each have our own personal universe perhaps? See Jesus return to Independence Missouri?

    4. Dr Michael L Brown
      April 24th, 2012 @ 9:33 pm

      Boris, just out of curiosity, can you read Hebrew or Greek fluently? Just wondering.

    5. ken
      April 25th, 2012 @ 7:30 am

      Sometimes the more we learn the less we know..Jesus called mostly uneducated men to be the foundation for his church ..lets not try to over think the Gospel its a simple thing …peace love and joy to my brothers and sisters in christ…most of all LOVE..

    6. Eric
      April 25th, 2012 @ 7:38 am

      Amen Ken. That’s true!

    7. ron david metcalf
      April 25th, 2012 @ 8:55 am

      Boris,
      you already have your own ‘personal universe’; and the left has used many more ‘fear-mongering’ tactics than the right the past few years.
      Have you heard of ‘hate speech’: trying to eradicate Christian beliefs, even from the pulpit within closed walls?

      Catholics have a throne set up for Jesus’ return in Rome; JWs have made Brooklyn, NY the center of the universe; I don’t have to follow the Mormons or the Muslims, either. This is about who will be our next Commander-in-Chief, and I want someone who will support Israel, not tell Iran, ‘Ok, go ahead and make your nuke and blow up Jerusalem; I don’t care.’

      Third-party politics have been suicide over the last few decades as to the party initiating it. If the Tea Party wants its own candidate, let it do things properly over the next four years; not hand BHO the election.

      Ahab is dead; let the 70 little Ahabs alone. Let’s go after Jez while we have a chance.

      In Him, Ron M.

    8. Boris
      April 25th, 2012 @ 9:41 am

      Dr. Brown,
      I read Ancient Greek. I’m Jewish by birth but don’t read Hebrew.

      ron david metcalf
      Why do you keep ignoring my questions? You said the thought of not existing frightens you. What could possibly be scary about not existing? If you could face your fears then you could see how OTHER PEOPLE have convinced you to believe in the absurd, the impossible and the ridiculous. Once you see that your religion is false you’ll also realize just how evil the red neck agenda you currently support really is. Since the Tea Party crowd hates the government I say we cut off their social security and see what they have to say about that.

    9. Dr Michael L Brown
      April 25th, 2012 @ 10:40 am

      Boris,

      That’s close enough to NT Greek for you to understand that the translators had valid reasons for what they did and that there’s no “Hollywood makeover.”

    10. ron david metcalf
      April 25th, 2012 @ 11:32 am

      Hard to keep up with all the different blogs daily, isn’t it?
      Not really a Tea-Partier; too long a story to get into now. Was mainly commenting on Dr. Brown’s latest Townhall article.
      For the record (to repeat):
      Saw the AP update on Breivik (Norway mass-murderer) this morn; thought, “where have I heard this before?”; googled Camus: ah yes, The Stranger. From Wikipedia:
      In Le Mythe, this dualism becomes a paradox: We value our lives and existence so greatly, but at the same time we know we will eventually die, and ultimately our endeavours are meaningless. While we can live with a dualism (I can accept periods of unhappiness, because I know I will also experience happiness to come), we cannot live with the paradox (I think my life is of great importance, but I also think it is meaningless).
      In Le Mythe, Camus suggests that ‘creation of meaning’, would entail a logical leap or a kind of philosophical suicide in order to find psychological comfort. But Camus wants to know if he can live with what logic and lucidity has uncovered – if one can build a foundation on what one knows and nothing more. Creation of meaning is not a viable alternative but a logical leap and an evasion of the problem…
      While writing his thesis on Plotinus and Saint Augustine of Hippo, Camus became very strongly influenced by their works, especially that of St. Augustine…
      Camus later came to tout the idea that the absence of religious belief can simultaneously be accompanied by a longing for “salvation and meaning”. This line of thinking presented an ostensible paradox and became a major thread in defining the idea of absurdism in Camus’ writings…
      Boris, your own ‘crusading’ reminds me much more of this ‘theater of the absurd’ than ‘atheism’!
      In Him, Ron M.
      Boris,
      post-mortum is a useless argument to empirical reasoning. Not suggesting you do so, I’m talking about pulling the trigger which I’ve already explained. Or taking it to the limit, like David Carradine among many others.
      Or writing on a hundred secular blogs where no one could care less about you or anything you say.
      Ever walked down New York City streets totally and completely alone (barefoot)?
      I wouldn’t dare dare you; but I just thought about the labyrinth of the mind. Those dreams of yours you can’t control; what makes you think they aren’t real warnings?
      In Him, Ron M.

    11. Tom
      April 25th, 2012 @ 4:59 pm

      I just have to interject a note to Boris:

      No, the JWs do not have the John 1:1c translation right. It is an anarthrous predicate nominative, and the indefinite article does not belong.

    12. ron david metcalf
      April 25th, 2012 @ 7:12 pm

      Boris,
      Don’t say I never did you a favor:
      Jer 51:39: In their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the LORD.
      Jer. 51:57: … and they shall sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the King, whose name is the LORD of hosts.
      Matt. 22:13: [called to the Feast, but found unworthy:] Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
      Etc.
      So (though unorthodox) here are some Scriptures you can use to plea for oblivion; so that you won’t exist forever and ever. Happy?

    13. Boris
      April 25th, 2012 @ 7:39 pm

      ron david metcalf
      What do I care what your fairy book says about anything? I don’t believe any of it. The fact that life is inherently meaningless is a great thing. It means each of us can give whatever meaning we want to our lives.

      Dr. Brown
      I already gave the reasons that translators continue to distort what the original text really says. The Bible is absurd and translators are desperately trying to make it seemless absurd. It isn’t working.

      Tom
      I disagree and so did every Greek Instructor I had in college and high school. Perhaps your should try your claim on someone who doesn’t know any better.

    14. Eric
      April 25th, 2012 @ 8:16 pm

      Dr. A. T. Robertson says:

      “The word with the article is then the subject, whatever the order may be. So in Jo. 1:1, theos an ho logos, the subject is perfectly clear. Cf. ho logos sarx egeneto (Jo. 1:14). It is true that ho theos an ho logos (convertible terms) would have been Sabellianism. See also ho theos agape estin (1 Jo.4:16). “God” and “love” are not convertible terms any more than “God” and “Logos” or “Logos” and “flesh.” Cf. also hoi theristai angeloi eisin (Mt. 13:39), ho logos ho sos alatheia estin (Jo. 17:17), ho nomos hamartia; (Ro. 7:7). The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea. ” (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934) p. 767-768.)

      H. E. Dana and Julius Mantey say:

      “The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon’s Anabasis, 1:4:6, emporion d’ en to korion, and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with theos. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in theos.” (H. E. Dana, Julius Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1950) pp. 148-149.)

      Dr. Kenneth Wuest says:

      “The Word was God. Here the word “God” is without the article in the original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence. Emphasis is upon the quality or character. Thus, John teaches us here that our Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is one with Him in nature and attributes. Jesus of Nazareth, the carpenter, the teacher, is Very God.” (Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, vol. 3, “Golden Nuggets,” p. 52.)

      F. F. Bruce says:
      “The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation “The Word was God.” Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai (and) shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also “with God”. What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or (to use a piece of modern jargon) was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase “what God was, the Word was”, brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can…So, when heaven and earth were created, there was the Word of God, already existing in the closest association with God and partaking of the essence of God. No matter how far back we may try to push our imagination, we can never reach a point at which we could say of the Divine Word, as Arius did, “There was once when he was not.”" (F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983), p. 31.)

      The Expositor’s Greek Testament says:

      “The Word is distinguishable from God and yet Theos en ho logos, the Word was God, of Divine nature; not “a God,” which to a Jewish ear would have been abominable; nor yet identical with all that can be called God, for then the article would have been inserted…” (W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 5 vols, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983), 1:684.)

      Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says:

      “A similar ascription is more common in the Johannine writings, and for the most part incontestable. Jn. 1:1 says of the Pre-existent: kai theos en ho logos…The lack of the article, which is grammatically necessary in 1:1, is striking here, and reminds us of Philonic usage. The Logos who became flesh and revealed the invisible God was a divine being, God by nature. The man born blind has some sense of this when, after his healing, he falls down in believing adoration before Christ, who addresses him with the divine “I” (Jn. 9:38f). The final veil is removed, however, when the Risen Lord discloses Himself to Thomas and the astonished disciple exclaims: ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou (Jn. 20:28). In Jn. 1:1 we have Christology: He is God in Himself. Here we have the revelation of Christ: He is God for believers.” (Gerhard Kittel, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964) vol 3:105-106.)

      Boris says:

      “I disagree and so did every Greek Instructor I had in college and high school. Perhaps your should try your claim on someone who doesn’t know any better.”

      F. F. Bruce replies:

      “It is nowhere more sadly true than in the acquisition of Greek that “a little learning is a dangerous thing”. The uses of the Greek article, the functions of Greek prepositions, and the fine distinctions between Greek tenses are confidently expounded in public at times by men who find considerable difficulty in using these parts of speech accurately in their native tongue.” (F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963), p. 60-61.)

      Dr. James White concluds:

      “There is obviously no scholarly support for the rendering of “a god,” and there is massive scholarly argument against it. It is not a valid translation in any way.” (http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html#12 ,which all references and other quotes can be found on this article)

    15. Dr Michael L Brown
      April 25th, 2012 @ 10:43 pm

      Boris, this is your whole problem, in your own words: “The Bible is absurd and translators are desperately trying to make it seemless absurd. It isn’t working.”

      To me, your words sound like those of a blind man saying that a sunset is not beautiful at all. What extraordinary riches and treasures are found in God’s Word to those would truly seek.

    16. Tom
      April 26th, 2012 @ 2:48 am

      Boris,

      My comment towards you was a simple statement of fact regarding the structure of the clause in koine Greek, there’s no need to be abrasive. Tell me, what’s really bothering you about Christianity that makes you lash out so?

    17. Boris
      April 26th, 2012 @ 2:54 am

      Eric
      Thanks for the cut and paste job. I don’t make posts on blogs or comments in conversation unless I am familiar with the subject being discussed. So when you read any of my posts you should assume that I am already familiar with the arguments on both sides of the issue. You have not posted one other person’s argument that I haven’t seen before. Not only are you wasting space but quoting other people who agree with you when you are not familiar with the subject, such as in the case of cosmology or I assume in this case as well, is really bad and improper debating technique and ethics. I’ll ask you again to respond to my posts in your own words please. Everyone on this blog is capable of looking up other people’s arguments all by themselves. Now what Tom did was post a short and direct comment that was probably his own words and it is a good argument. I just sort of waved it off the way my objections and questions are waved off and ignored by the few people who engage me here. I wonder why no one called me on that.

      Tom,
      I apologize for the non-answer. Most people don’t know that there is no indefinite article or word for “a” or “an” in Koine Greek. This is why translators have to add it to English translations of the NT. There are many instances in the NT where a singular anarthrous predicate noun precedes the verb and translators have inserted the indefinite article before the predicate noun. It’s important to notice that no one complains when translators do this any place else but in this one verse. I haven’t seen or heard anyone complain when translators snuck an indefinite article into the text of 1Tim 4:8 in the NKJV. This clearly changes the meaning of the text. No one on this blog has bothered to comment on this fact either. Anyone care to? Eric? Dr. Brown? The argument over whether Jesus was God or not, doesn’t concern me since don’t believe either exist. I’m impartial theologically and just want to know what the original text was trying to convey. I think the NWT has the correct translation of John 1:1. The only people who could settle this particular issue for sure are dead and have been for quite some time.

      Dr. Brown,
      What I find much more absurd than anything in the Bible are the claims people make about it such as that it’s actually God’s Word; that it can tell us about events in the past or even more absurd, events in the future. I don’t deny that the Bible contains inspirational literature. I have my favorite parts. However the Bible really loses a large part of its audience when it talks about beings like Satan and other angels and implausible supernatural occurrences. These are the absurdities that often embarrass modern educated Christians. I can tell they just wish those things were not in the text. Translators have taken the hint and are slowly rewriting what is often claimed to be “God’s Word” as best they can. Most of the changes are subtle as in the example I have provided in 1Tim 4:8. You notice these things when you read the Bible and REALLY DO truly seek as you put it.

    18. Eric
      April 26th, 2012 @ 5:39 am

      Boris,

      One thing I’ve learned through apologetics is that you never assume knowledge on people. So I will not assume or believe that you have knowledge on any topic unless you prove it. That is actually one mistake, that when people make, it only makes conversations more confusing.

      Instead of giving debate techniques, why don’t you respond to the arguments? You claim that you’re all too familiar with them all, so go ahead and prove it. Here is your chance. So far you’ve done nothing to show that there is any serious scholarship on your side.

    19. Matt B
      April 26th, 2012 @ 8:15 am

      Boris, modern educated followers of Jesus the Christ are NOT embarassed by record of the miraculous, or by the Bible in any other way. Hey, JESUS WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD- and that by the power of GOD’s Holy Spirit- the same power working in those who submit themselves and believe.

      Boris, I doubt we will convince you with arguments- no matter how correct or precise or unassailable they could be made. One day (I am praying soon) the LOVE of the God who lives, that unique, unspeakable, glorious love will reach into your life and you will be transformed. Don’t resist Him who cannot be resisted.

      Boris, one other thing. You stated above: “The fact that life is inherently meaningless is a great thing. It means each of us can give whatever meaning we want to our lives.” The outflow of that is clear. Is pedophilia okay? Is it good for a dictator to opress if it fits the meaning he has given to his life? (Adolph Hitler certainly felt justified in his actions, just to give one obvious example- he was acting completely consistently in perfect ebodiment of the philosophy you have stated). What limits are there? Corporate societal? Who decides? What if I am inclined to murder my unborn, or newly born child- who is to say that its a crime? Beat my wife so that she obeys? Or murder a whole village because someone revealed that I was the local drug kingpin? Is that a “great thing”?

      Boris, you are a very intelligent person, who obviously cares a lot about these subjects- but you have cast aside the treasure for clinging to your objections, and what are you left with?

      I think you are closer to the Kingdom than you will let yourself admit. I think you are angry with God, and the best efforts of scholarship and sophistry have not been able to erase Him. Is is so bad to admit- HE IS? You are not ready now. I pray you will be one day. And I will gladly walk with you in paradise. Boris, by the grace of God, I would give my life, that you would believe.

    20. ron david metcalf
      April 26th, 2012 @ 8:44 am

      Boris,
      thanks for being the antagonist so we can practice our witnessing techniques :)
      Trying to argue from your perspective (since you won’t acknowledge any of ours):
      1) Matter/energy conservation is the sole Absolute we have agreed upon (in theory, not origin).
      2)From this scientific observation (alone):
      what you espouse is ‘faith’ no less or greater than what I espouse as ‘faith’: neither can be ‘proven’.
      3) Thus your mindset (depressive, manic, logical, short- or long-term memory, etc.) is no ‘better or worse’ than anyone else’s on the planet (using 1) as the standard), so you only have the ‘right’ to your own opinion, which by your declaration of ‘faith’ will disappear into the void of nothingness very soon. We’re just trying to iunderstand how you can really live like that.
      In Him, Ron M.

    21. ken
      April 26th, 2012 @ 9:18 am

      Nicely said Matt B, Amen ..

    22. Dr Michael L Brown
      April 26th, 2012 @ 9:22 am

      Hey folks, as engaging as our friend Boris can be, this is just a reminder to stay with the topic of the thread and only deal with things we discussed on the air this day. Not only is that our rule for all threads here, but it prevents any one person from inserting their agenda. I don’t believe there was anything about atheism or creation on this show, so for that discussion, please bring that discussion back to a relevant thread. Thanks!

    23. ron david metcalf
      April 26th, 2012 @ 10:25 am

      So bye for now, Boris.
      Sorry I’m not ready to say I’m ready to give my life for you. You remind me way too much of my old self, and that’s disgusting. I thought I may have been on the fringes of existence once enough to reach out and help you into my canoe on the Deliverance River.
      GOD led me out of myself by way of Marriage, Family, and Tribe.
      My Savior, though, didn’t just preach a good sermon abouit sacrificing His life for you; the record states He gave His life for us all, and was Resurrected in Glory; for you personally to accept, or deny.
      In Him, Ron M.

    24. Boris
      April 26th, 2012 @ 2:22 pm

      Eric
      April 26th, 2012 @ 5:39 am
      Boris,
      One thing I’ve learned through apologetics is that you never assume knowledge on people. So I will not assume or believe that you have knowledge on any topic unless you prove it. That is actually one mistake, that when people make, it only makes conversations more confusing.
      Instead of giving debate techniques, why don’t you respond to the arguments? You claim that you’re all too familiar with them all, so go ahead and prove it. Here is your chance. So far you’ve done nothing to show that there is any serious scholarship on your side.

      Response: I post comments using my own thoughts and words. You obviously don’t know anything about the subjects being discussed so you cut and paste the arguments made by OTHER PEOPLE. I can’t argue with them, they’re not here. If you want to debate then use your own words and thoughts – if you actually have any on these subjects, which I seriously doubt. Also I just reposted 11 objections to your First Cause Argument on the Trayvon Martin thread, which everyone can see you have COMPLETLY ignored. The reason I listed these objections is because I know there are no satisfactory responses to them anywhere – on the Internet or anywhere else. You would have to answer them all by yourself and so far you have proved yourself completely unable to do this.

      Matt B

      Boris, modern educated followers of Jesus the Christ are NOT embarassed by record of the miraculous, or by the Bible in any other way. Hey, JESUS WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD- and that by the power of GOD’s Holy Spirit- the same power working in those who submit themselves and believe.

      Response: So the Noah’s Ark story doesn’t embarrass you in the least? That speaks volumes.

      Boris, I doubt we will convince you with arguments- no matter how correct or precise or unassailable they could be made. One day (I am praying soon) the LOVE of the God who lives, that unique, unspeakable, glorious love will reach into your life and you will be transformed. Don’t resist Him who cannot be resisted.

      Response: You are correct none of your arguments will ever convince me to believe the ridiculous things you Christians believe. Arguments are not evidence. They are a good indication however that the person making the argument has no evidence. Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I need to see some evidence before I’ll believe something and when I do I’m still willing to change my mind if more evidence is provided. But there us simply no evidence to support any Christian belief. If there were really any evidence to support Christianity, why all the fatally flawed arguments?

      Boris, one other thing. You stated above: “The fact that life is inherently meaningless is a great thing. It means each of us can give whatever meaning we want to our lives.” The outflow of that is clear. Is pedophilia okay?

      Response: I have already demonstrated several times on this blog that my system of morality is objectively based on the value of human life itself. That which enhances and protects life is good and that which harms or destroys life is bad. Therefore pedophilia is wrong according to my moral philosophy. However if we use Christianity’s moral system we see that pedophilia should not be punished but rather the pedophile should just be moved to a new location where he can molest a whole new set of children. Boy you walked right into that one didn’t you?

      Is it good for a dictator to opress if it fits the meaning he has given to his life? (Adolph Hitler certainly felt justified in his actions, just to give one obvious example- he was acting completely consistently in perfect ebodiment of the philosophy you have stated).

      Response: Adolph Hitler was devout Catholic Christian. The Holocaust was nothing more that the latest Christian Crusade. Hitler didn’t just murder 6 million Jews, he murdered 5 million other non-believers as well, atheists, deists, agnostics and anyone else who did not profess faith in Jesus Christ. You walked right into that one to.

      What limits are there? Corporate societal? Who decides? What if I am inclined to murder my unborn, or newly born child- who is to say that its a crime? Beat my wife so that she obeys? Or murder a whole village because someone revealed that I was the local drug kingpin? Is that a “great thing”?

      Response: There is no record of a society where murder, stealing, or dishonesty, were considered good things. Except of course during the Dark Ages when Christians thought murdering heretics and witches were good things because God commanded them.

      Boris, you are a very intelligent person, who obviously cares a lot about these subjects- but you have cast aside the treasure for clinging to your objections, and what are you left with?

      Response: I’m left with a very nice life, a nice house, a wonderful family, great friends, a little scratch and the Washington Nationals in first place. I’ll take that over a set of religious superstitions any day.

      I think you are closer to the Kingdom than you will let yourself admit. I think you are angry with God, and the best efforts of scholarship and sophistry have not been able to erase Him. Is is so bad to admit- HE IS? You are not ready now. I pray you will be one day. And I will gladly walk with you in paradise. Boris, by the grace of God, I would give my life, that you would believe.

      Response: The reason you think I am angry with God is because that is how you have felt at least a few times in your life. That’s you dirty little secret isn’t it? I don’t believe there is a God so I cannot possibly be angry at something I don’t believe exists. I think you’re just angry with the Muslim God. Why else would you resist him? Don’t ignore this question. I want to know why you resist Allah.

      ron david metcalf
      I cannot accept something that clearly does not exist. I don’t need anyone to give their life for me including Jesus had he actually existed. However I would surely risk my life to protect the rights of religious people to practice their intellectual perversions in the privacy of their own homes and churches. Freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion are worth dying for.

    25. Eric
      April 26th, 2012 @ 7:14 pm

      Boris,

      All you’re saying to me is that you are unable or incapable to respond to the arguments. You can make up as many excuses as you want to as to why you’re running from the arguments, but the fact remains and it’s quite obvious. As for the other thread, leave it on the other thread. In brief, I’ve responded to all of your points there but you choose to continuously repeat yourself and think that will somehow accomplish something.

    26. Eric
      April 26th, 2012 @ 7:21 pm

      I just read Dr. Browns post now. I am not sure if the topic of translation (specifically John 1:1) is relevant or not, if it is, okay. If not, I apologize and will refrain from posting about the topic.

      Although there isn’t much more to be said, I just quoted scholars and all Boris is doing is refusing to actually respond. Either way, I will probably step away from the topic.

      Lord bless you all.

    27. Dr Michael L Brown
      April 26th, 2012 @ 8:35 pm

      Eric, I very much appreciated your post, for sure! I’m just trying to keep us on track in each thread to maintain its integrity, and, as I said, so as to be sure that no person or group can hijack the thread or site.

    28. Eric
      April 26th, 2012 @ 9:38 pm

      Thanks Dr. Brown and yes, fully understood.

      God bless you.

    29. Dan1el
      April 27th, 2012 @ 12:29 pm

      There is a certain proverb about a man who holds his opinion higher than seven wise men who can give a good answer – that being said, I’ve seen some issues glossed over in my time, too.

    30. Boris
      April 27th, 2012 @ 6:49 pm

      Eric,
      Here is my response to your cut and paste job in case you missed it. Now stop saying I haven’t responded to and refuted your claims. I have every one of them and anyone can easily see that. Contrasting that you continue to duck my questions and objections.

      Most people don’t know that there is no indefinite article or word for “a” or “an” in Koine Greek. This is why translators have to add it to English translations of the NT. There are many instances in the NT where a singular anarthrous predicate noun precedes the verb and translators have inserted the indefinite article before the predicate noun. It’s important to notice that no one complains when translators do this any place else but in this one verse. I haven’t seen or heard anyone complain when translators snuck an indefinite article into the text of 1Tim 4:8 in the NKJV. This clearly changes the meaning of the text. No one on this blog has bothered to comment on this fact either. Anyone care to? Eric? Dr. Brown? The argument over whether Jesus was God or not, doesn’t concern me since don’t believe either exist. I’m impartial theologically and just want to know what the original text was trying to convey. I think the NWT has the correct translation of John 1:1. The only people who could settle this particular issue for sure are dead and have been for quite some time. Poof.

    31. Dr Michael L Brown
      April 27th, 2012 @ 9:18 pm

      Word order, Boris, word order. Do you not understand the word order of John 1:1c? Also, the NWT, which is universally panned by Greek scholars for many good reasons, create two gods!

      In any case, was this a topic discussed on the radio or introduced here? If the former, great, please continue to the discussion. If not, please move over to an appropriate thread. Thanks!

    32. ken
      April 28th, 2012 @ 11:10 am

      Boris, Intelligence without wisdom negates both. The beginning of wisdom is fear of a living G-d !!! I look forward to the day when you find the true living g-d as I know you will. For the word said seek and you will find.. peace and joy to you my brother.

    33. Boris
      April 28th, 2012 @ 7:30 pm

      The beginning of wisdom is rejecting assertions made without evidence there Ken. Dr. Brown the first thing they teach you in Greek class is that word order doesn’t matter.

    34. Dr Michael L Brown
      April 28th, 2012 @ 8:19 pm

      Boris,

      It appears that you studied Greek with the wrong teachers (or else grossly overstated what they told you). Nonsense!

    35. Boris
      April 29th, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

      That’s an ad homenim Dr. Brown, a logical fallacy often committed by Christians when they, like you in this instance, don’t know how to refute an argument or in this case real evidence. I made my case.

    36. Dr Michael L Brown
      April 29th, 2012 @ 4:07 pm

      Boris, there is no case you can make here and there is nothing ad hominem in my remarks. Anyone who knows Greek grammar knows that word order does matter in many ways — how about emphasis, for example? — and in John 1:1, the position of theos in the last clause is important. This is not disputed by grammarians and interpreters and translators.

      This note from the NET translators indicates how much word order can matter: ” Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.”

    37. ron metcalf
      April 29th, 2012 @ 7:55 pm

      Respectfully, the ‘a’ or ‘an’ debate Boris proposes adds nothing to First Cause reasoning; this is but a sideshow, since he believes ‘none of it’ anyway.
      But how is this Vehicle of Meaning Conveyed? By binary math (on-off) giving Light (electricity) to the darkness of incoherence; yet a Leap of Faith is needed for Code (Ark of the Covenant) to be understood; otherwise, everything is mere babbling (as the recently discovered Music of the Sun, not yet comprehended)that cannot separate useless symbol from (e.g.) propogation of the species. (Library 101, the meaning of marks.) Boris continues to try and travel upstream without a paddle. He elucidates tragedy in every sentence; in his universe, communication ultimately has no purpose.
      In Him, Ron M.

    38. Boris
      May 1st, 2012 @ 2:11 am

      Dr. Brown,
      There are many instances in the NT where a singular anarthrous predicate noun precedes the verb and translators have inserted the indefinite article before the predicate noun. I think it belongs in John 1:1 and you don’t. Your argument, that it just must have a certain meaning, that Jesus was divine, is theological not grammatical. In other words it’s based on your preconceived notion that the author believed what you do about the trinity, something that was invented centuries after this passage was written. I shouldn’t have mentioned this passage because it wasn’t the subject of my post. The subject of my post was the Hollywood makeover translators are giving the English Bible and I used the recent changes in 1Tim 4:8 as an example. Do you care to comment on post #3 on this thread and in particular the passage in question? Does anyone else?

      Ron,
      I’m not sure how many times you changed subjects in your post or what it is you are trying to convey. You did tell me a while back that the thought of not existing was frightening to you. I have asked you several times to explain why that is and you have ignored me. Is the thought of explaining why the thought of not existing is so frightening also frightening to you?

    39. Dr Michael L Brown
      May 1st, 2012 @ 10:27 am

      Boris,

      What I find amazing (re: John 1:1) is that you know much more about Greek language and interpretation then the finest Greek NT scholars in the world. (Yes, there’s some sarcasm here.) For the record, though, please be kind enough to supply with just 4-5 grammatical examples from the NT that are exactly parallel to John 1:1c. This way I can better analyze your argument.

      In any case, your statement that word order doesn’t mean anything at all is obviously bogus, even if emphasis was the only issue (which it is not).

    40. Boris
      May 1st, 2012 @ 11:43 am

      Dr. Brown,
      John 4:19, John 6:70, John 8:44. John 10:13, John 12:6 are just a few examples from the same Gospel. What I find not so amazing is how you completely ignored my request that you explain why 1Tim 4:8 and the rest of the Bible have been undergoing a Hollywood makeover. Do you think if you just ignore this problem it will go away? Not hardly. Skeptics like me will continue to point out all the problems, blunders and rewrites in the text of the Bible until there’s no one left to believe a word of it.

    41. Dr Michael L Brown
      May 1st, 2012 @ 8:13 pm

      Boris,

      I don’t respond to 90% (or more) of posts and comments here, and when things are busy, I can’t even read the vast majority of them. And in years past when I interacted with you, I didn’t see the slightest bit of desire for you to admit you were wrong on any point, however small. Not a drop of openness or desire for truth was evident as we interacted. But you are still welcome to post here as long as you abide by the guidelines.

    42. ron david metcalf
      May 1st, 2012 @ 10:20 pm

      .So let’s see if I missed something here:
      Your Zero Cause Theory of the Universe is based on the material & immaterial (mass/energy) that “doesn’t matter” because there is no God and no life after death.
      So the quantum leap to ‘Life’ could take trillions of light-years under this weight, if random chance somehow managed to tweak the Rubix cube into the first (agreed?) pre-protezoa in a hostile environment. But no, I don’t fear this theory of yours.
      I had friends in Az., and I didn’t witness any of this in person, but heard about it soon afterward: one slipped off a cliff diving into Oak Creek (a normal summer preoccupation) and nearly instantly became a veggie invalid; another, ironically, was hit by an ambulance riding a nonobtrusive (@250cc) dirt bike, and they ended up scraping some of his brains off the pavement. So none of this may scare you at all, macho man, but maybe you are partying a bit too mcuh to notice? Because that happened quite often in my ancient circle of ‘friends’; it’s known as a ‘wake-up call’.
      In Him, Ron M.

    43. Boris
      May 1st, 2012 @ 10:39 pm

      Dr. Brown,
      I’m not sure what you could be referring to but I don’t remember ever having a theist prove me wrong about anything. I remember it being you the one who couldn’t admit he was wrong. What was I wrong about exactly? Did you come up with some kind of proof God existed or the Bible is what you say it is? I don’t remember that. I’m sure I don’t know what you’re talking about.

      Ron,
      I don’t know what you are talking about. Why don’t you face your fears and tell me why the thought of not existing frightens you so much.

    44. Ken
      May 2nd, 2012 @ 6:58 am

      Boris, Your answer’s are summed up in your last statement to Dr, Brown “I’m sure I don’t know what you’re talking about” I’m praying that G-d will open your eyes to the truth,a good start would be to do a word study on (FAITH)

    45. Dr Michael L Brown
      May 2nd, 2012 @ 7:20 am

      Boris, that’s the problem. You were refuted on numerous factual points (which we won’t revisit here, including your “Hitler was a Christian” claim — again, we’re not opening those subjects here, and they are not relevant to this thread), and in light of your incredibly boastful trash talk before coming on my radio show, you fell very, very flat on the air, as even you must admit if you’re honest with yourself.

      That’s it, now for my responding, but I’m sure others here will have more to say to you if they so desire. Again, the only requirements to all are to stay on track and follow the guidelines for posting. I wish you God’s grace and mercy.

    46. ron david metcalf
      May 2nd, 2012 @ 9:24 am

      Boris,
      I ‘see’ us as sitting around a campfire and you keep prodding me for more stories, which is irresistible to an old storyteller. There is also some obligation involved, as I hitchhiked all around the U.S. and parts of Canada in my teens, and for years after would pick up anyone with their thumb out on the road no matter how bad news they appeared. But there are also limits to tolerance.
      I carried a duffle bag with a sleeping bag and a few clothes in it; a cop took my ice pick somewhere in Minnesota; my only nightly defense. I slept under overpasses, or open sections by patches of woods next to highways.
      In Arizona I would hike for days by myself or with a buddy without a gun; whenever I felt danger I would pick up the biggest rock I could find that would fit in my pocket. So your attempts to continue to insult me just won’t work.
      Let me tell you something recently that did scare me just a bit, though: I tried to help a homeless Cherokee a few years younger than me, though he looked much older. The young guys he was hanging around with told me he was hooked on ‘swish’; that is, drinking mouthwash for the alcohol. Just a matter of time; and, there but for the Grace of GOD, goes I…
      I think I’m going to douse the embers now and say seeyalater. I’ll leave you with this to remember me by:

      Though you exalt yourself as the eagle, and though you set your nest among the stars, from there I will bring you down, says the LORD.

      Happy trails, Boris,
      In Him, Ron M.

    47. Boris
      May 3rd, 2012 @ 2:53 am

      Dr. Brown,
      I still have a copy of that show I was a guest on and I’ll be more than happy to send it via Email to anyone who wants to hear it including you since you don’t seem to remember it very well. You were a gracious host but you made sure you always got the last word on the subjects we discussed, when you had one. How fair is that may I ask? You picked the subjects and moderated the show but I think I did pretty well under those conditions and so does everyone I know who has heard it. Anyone who wants to hear the show can decide for themselves if I was in fact refuted on numerous factual points and fell very, very flat on the air.

      ron david metcalf
      I’m not trying to prod you for more stories or insult you. I’m not trying to find out what else scares you. You said not existing scares you. I want to know why.

    48. ron david metcalf
      May 3rd, 2012 @ 4:58 pm

      One last time, and that is all.
      What I said, exactly, is, “Not exisiting is nearly as scary as hell.”
      You don’t believe in hell, but you have said many times that you don’t believe in life after death.
      You ‘think’ that’s ok, but that’s the entire point: when you begin to stop thinking, which is all you have, Boris, you are going to start to panic: because the complete and total disassociation will be too much for your mind to handle; not having anything outside of your self to hold on to.
      I’ve tried to keep this from being mordbid; but you survive by being in control of everything, Boris; so when you understand that that is totally, gone, you won’t know what to do.
      I didn’t want to end like this; but GOD doesn’t always allow your final curtain bows; and you have absolutely no guarantees whatsoever that you won’t have to face a Final Judgment.
      In Him, Ron M.

    49. Boris
      May 4th, 2012 @ 8:00 pm

      Ron,
      You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that I will have to face a Final Judgment. Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Like most people I fear dying but I surely do not fear being dead. The dead don’t know they’re dead. So what is there to be afraid of? If you could just man up for once and face your fears you could easily see your way out of this relgion you’ve been bullied into buying into.

    50. Dr Michael L Brown
      May 4th, 2012 @ 10:02 pm

      Boris,

      Feel free to send the link to the show out far and wide. My joy! And please measure the show against your pre-show trash talk too.

    51. Boris
      May 6th, 2012 @ 1:17 pm

      Dr. Brown,
      Oh I readily admit that anyone who shares your views would think you did well in our little conversation. However no one else would and to me they are the only people who matter anyway. I don’t think you have a clue as to how the rest of the rational and sane world looks at people like you.

    52. Ken
      May 6th, 2012 @ 8:32 pm

      Boris, Rational and sane world?…really did you just say that..so you saying Dr.king was insane as a believer in Christ or President Washington , or most of are founding Father’s many great men in are history were also believer’s in Christ so if that’s insane I’ll get in that line any day

    Leave a Reply