The Narrow Path 8/28

Welcome to the narrow path radio broadcast, Steve, Greg and were live for an hour each week there was a open phone line for you to call if you have questions about the Bible of the Christian faith. We have an hour together without commercial breaks and if you'd like to get in line your late lives are full but I'm going to give you right now we have a we have our full lines and that we get a be taking these call salons will be opening up and you want to have this number handy if you want to get in when the slides open. The numbers 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 our first color today is from Abraham in Spokane Washington Abram welcome to the narrow path transfer calling. Thank you very much. Questions one on inspiration and a number on the incarnation, please first talk about the rooms of the inspiration of Scripture and your views on each and the second question on the incarnation so on the Connecticut motions are the feelings of the incarnation, and your views on each you would please okay be glad to talk about that on on the matter of inspiration.

Do I believe in the verbal or plenary info view of inspiration. I don't necessarily have labels like that from a view of inspiration.

What I understand is that each book is written by an author to whom God made things known and in that author repeated them or gave them to us.

They didn't always doing exactly the same way.

For example, the prophets, Daniel, for example, when he had a dream or vision. He loaded down. Maybe the next day or later he wrote it down now the dream of the vision was inspired. It was information revealed by God. We don't know because he doesn't tell us whether he was experiencing at the time he wrote it down. A phenomenon called you know inspiration at that moment it wouldn't make a difference to me if he accurately recorded what he received in his dream. That is an inspired message but I don't know under I don't know what his psychological condition was in terms of writing. Likewise, the gospel writers of the gospel writers were none of them actually mention if they were inspired or not. Nor do they seem to make an issue of it.

It really doesn't matter to them to bring such a thing up because what they're just telling us is that with whether telling is true.

Now the information they tell us about Jesus certainly an inspired revelation from God. If there ever was one and they saw him they heard him they recorded what he said and did, and they don't mention anything about plenary or verbal inspiration of the writings that you say this is what happened now Luke. Interestingly, of the three Gospels tells us this, he says at the beginning of his gospel that he was not the first to write down the things that Jesus said and did that there were others that he was familiar with them and he had spoken to the eyewitnesses and that he had, he said. Comprehensive knowledge of the subject and then he goes on to tell the story and he said I said, I think it's interesting because he that would be a good place for them to said and I'm inspired by the Holy Spirit as I write. I knew if he wants us to know and understand that he's telling the truth. Certainly inspiration would be a good thing to mention, but instead he mentions that he had thorough knowledge of the subject. Paul talks that way to in Ephesians chapter 3 he talks of the mystery of Christ, which was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit. He said was hidden from generations past was revealed to the apostles and prophets by the Spirit, but he says I hope that what I write. You understand my my knowledge of the subject in others is not saying I am at this very moment, might my pen is being moved by some force of the Holy Spirit, but rather in writing of the subject that I know about and I know about it because God revealed to me so I think a lot of times in thinking of the inspiration of Scripture. People think that means that when the writers were writing something almost, almost magical was happening to them like they weren't in their own mind at all.

Other people believe that they were in their own mind of God was superintending every word that they wrote, so that if they he wouldn't let them even with their own mind.

Write down something that wasn't his natural liquid in response to that in a good sermon and minister to others to talk about. They asked a question by the word of God is not it. Not to second-guess everybody's understanding of that. But with that, remember that when they asked that question you believe the Bible's word of God.

Well, yeah, I mean the thing is there's people who don't believe the Bible and people who do. I'm one of those who believes the Bible. I believe everything says I'm not willing to impose on the Bible.

Traditional ideas that are traditions of evangelicals anymore than I'm willing to impose on my views of Mary ideas that are traditions of Catholics, I mean Mary is a wonderful woman in the Bible is a reliable revelation from God that I'm knocking to make up things about the Bible that is doesn't say about itself. Even though my evangelical heritage does not and what I'm saying is the Bible is true and God is the one who gave it to see. He revealed himself through Christ and gave us reliable witnesses to tell us about Christ what he said and did we have those in the Gospels, he revealed himself to the apostles, he revealed his gospel to the apostles and and they wrote, according to the wisdom that he gave them.

They never really claimed that there were writing like prophets right you know that like oracles only once. As far as I can remember this Paul ever even speak as if using Oracle because it breaks away from his normal way of writing in second Corinthians 6 and says you know basically therefore be returned to it so I can give you his actual words that he he talks like he's a prophet.

He says in verse 17 second Corinthians 617, 18, come, and therefore, from among them and be be separate, says the Lord.

Do not touch what is unclean and I will receive you and I will be your father's center center sounds like a prophetic Oracle.

Although he is quoting a couple of verses from the Old Testament so he speaks it as if it's an Oracle but exactly quoting Scripture, but some people think he is a giving and or collect a profit if he is it's very uncommon for him because most the time he just writes as himself telling what God authorized him to say the prophets.

Also, I believe they were inspired by God and they got their visions and their dreams and the words from God, but I don't know at the moment. They wrote things down what was going on in their heads, for example. Jeremiah wrote out a whole long prophecy and and showed it to the king and the king toward upper cut it up with a knife and burned and so Jeremiah just wrote it down again and added more words also reset you know I mean it. I don't know if if were supposed understand and certainly Jeremiah doesn't apply that he he came under a whole new wave of inspiration to rewrite the prophecies it's assumed he knew what the prophecies were hit receive them from God earlier and he was able to write them down that a person can accurate can accurately write down what God told him what God revealed is good enough for me. Now if we want to add to that that there is some magic going on. Action is what magic sets are cultivated something that would seem magical something that would seem supernatural going on as they put their pen to the parchment well.

Many people believe that II certainly was raised believing that but I don't find any writer of the Bible, claiming that and so I I have to wonder how much of that is an evangelical tradition and how much of it is necessary to believe now, I believe the Bible is the word of God. For that reason I believe God has spoken to us through the apostles and prophets who wrote it, but I will say this. Somebody asked me on the air many years ago.

Why do you call the Bible the word of God when the Bible doesn't call itself the word of God. It says that Jesus is when I was a little interested in. That's I did some research. I looked up every place in the Bible that speaks of the word of God, and they were they were correct. There's not any place in the Bible where the Bible itself is called word of God. But the gospel is preached by the apostles is said to God that doesn't tell us anything about the actual physical writing of it, but the message they had is called the word of God and of course Jesus is also called God that but most the time in the New Testament. If you read the expression word of God. It's actually referring to the preaching of the gospel they went and into this town and they preach the word of God is pretty much the standard way to find that expression and start of the preaching the gospel.

So what they preached was the word of God. What they wrote, no doubt was very much in agreement with what they preached.

But it doesn't tell us whether there was something supernatural going on while they wrote it down and I'm not sure why they would need to be as long as they're telling the truth. The things of God revealed that I have a divine revelation from God, represented in the pages of Scripture. That's good enough for me. If I were know the mind of God had add other layers of theory to what was going on in their minds or their spirits when they wrote I'll have to do that from external sources. The Bible doesn't tell me as far as incarnation of Christ goes on I can hold the connoted theory which is the idea that Jesus emptied himself word gnosis means empty edits to its text is taken from Philippians chapter 2 verses God, Jesus existed in the form of God, but he emptied himself into crimes of performance or the idea is that what he did was actually limit himself. He actually emptied himself of his supernatural divine prerogatives as God and lived as a man under handicaps like us now. It doesn't seem like he was under those handicaps because he raise the dead and heal the sick and walk on water and did miracles and stuff. However, the apostles did many of the same kinds of miracles, and they work God. They were humans acting in the power of the Holy Spirit. And that's what Jesus said he was doing.

He said he was acting the power of the Holy Spirit. It says in Luke chapter 4 that after the temptation of Jesus. He returned in the power of the Holy Spirit to minister in Galilee.

Jesus said if I'm casting out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come upon you and ask chapter 1 it says it Jesus after his and it is with his disciples. It says here he had given them instructions through the Holy Spirit, and others. Jesus offered through the spirit and he gave the same gifts, the spirit that operate through him to his body, the church and we see them being done by members of his body in the book of acts as well and in some time since I type so I believe the Jesus it's very realistic to say that Jesus did empty himself of his divine abilities and trusted in his father and walked in the spirit like he expects us to do and one reason I say that is because we know that God is omniscient. But Jesus was not God is omnipotent, he never runs out of energy. But Jesus got retired and fell asleep often from weariness. You know how we we find that Jesus is under instructions from his father and enabled by his father do things, but he doesn't know everything he says he doesn't.

He tells us ice as real as for that day and neither no man knows that day, nor the Angels nor does the sun means himself since only the father knows that. So Jesus himself declares himself to not be omniscient and not to be omnipotent is that I can do nothing, except with the father chosen is the works I do. That's the father does the works in his as far as being omnipotent.

He wasn't omnipotent he could he could become exhausted, and he wasn't on the present. He was one place at a time and it wasn't everyplace at the same time. So by becoming a man. He did apparently empty himself of many of the prerogatives he had before he became a man is God and he had to live under the same handicaps we do, that's what my view is out. I know I read that once I was reading. I guess it was Jay Packer's book knowing God. He was target this current kinetic theory, and he was thinking is heresy, but then he think as a heretic from our Calvinists to but you know I don't hold views because there traditionally called heresy or or orthodoxy I hold is because I find them taught or not taught in the Bible that's harming the decisions all right hey we have a long time together and got a lot of people waiting, but I hope that's helpful to you so much okay him him thanks for your call okay Travis from San Diego, California. Welcome to the neuropathic for calling the I'm okay with. And when he come bad day bad a body deep in the where would he go to heaven right away if if when Jesus Jesus came back today, what would had out people who've never heard the word of God is at your same well they would go to heaven because of their ignorance because no one is saved by ignorance. In fact, the Bible indicates ignorance is hooked. What is the enemy of our salvation. Since God said my people perish for lack of knowledge. So, not knowing something isn't going to save you. However, we can believe that those who belong to Christ will be saved, even if they don't know everything that they would like to know, or should be good for them to know, for example, you and I believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose again and is returning things like that. We do believe that it is true that we have that knowledge that there are things we don't know we don't know all the details of the second coming. There's lots of controversy about those things and lots of people are different theories.

We don't even as we picture Christ our picture Christ may not be exactly the same because we program our mental images of him. It's like there are things we don't know about Jesus and about God and about even the doctors we believe there were not.

We don't know everything, and therefore we have to believe that God will save those who have met the conditions for salvation through Christ. Despite ignorance of some things.

Now there are people who do not know the name of Christ. They never heard the gospel preached they know there's a God. They know that you know that God is deserves their loyalty and they have sought God.

Sometimes they danced through through religions that are deceptions. Other times they may not be associate with any religion or just in their own heart seeking God like Cornelius was doing that kind of through the Jewish religion.

He was a Gentile.

But Cornelius is doing that God knew his heart. His prayers were heard by God. The Bible says and and he was given the opportunity to hear the gospel. Now some people in that condition may not have the opportunity of the gospel. If there's no Christians in their vicinity in their lifetime and therefore maybe they have a chance to hear it after they die. Don't know I don't got to do, but I do know that God wants all people to be saved and if people have it in their heart to serve and please God, but they've simply never heard about Christ that does mean that Christ is impotent to save them. Christ can do whatever he wants to.

He paid the price for all people and if he sees in the heart of somebody one who would be his disciple if they could if they knew then he has every right to reveal himself to them before or after death. As far as I know I say has the right to I don't know what he will do, but the answer is no. People who are ignorant will not be saved just by being ignorant if they've never heard the gospel that doesn't it doesn't save them so that people might be saved.

Despite being ignorant as you and I are somewhat ignorant about many things, yet were saved. God doesn't require people to know everything in order to be saved just to have their heart given to him and course Jesus died forever. And so Jesus can accept anyone whose heart he recognizes is good.

As we saw in the case of Cornelius and others.

Okay, let's talk to Tim from Sun City, Arizona Tim, welcome to the neuropathic for calling Steve. My question is based on John 1623 and 26. Is it okay to speak directly to Jesus in prayer or are we disobeying him if we don't speak only to the father in prayer. Jesus said in that day you will ask me nothing but what if you asked the father in my name, it will be given to you so he apparently is teaching very plainly to pray to the father.

Of course he had he done that earlier when the disciples it teaches the price of acuity, pray, say, our father which art in heaven, so Jesus taught the apostles to pray to the father and and we find that that's what they did we find one of the prayers recorded in acts chapter 4 guess it is where they address the father of Ashley: Lord, but they're speaking to the father because they say to them, your son, Jesus, you know, and therefore the officer talking to father Paul.

Also in Ephesians 3 says I bow my knees to the father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So Paul prayed the apostles. Jesus told us to pray to the father. Now one could say well okay) father should be pray to Jesus also can repair to both well. Jesus said in that day you will ask me nothing you will ask the father so it sounds to me like he's saying I'm not the one you to be asking about things. My father is the one to be talking to about so is it a sin to pray to Jesus, it cannot be a sin to pray to Jesus or to talk to Jesus he's told us that our request should be made to the father. Now I communicate with my wife about many things in most things I say to her are not asking her from fretting about making requests necessarily reduce communicate, we can communicate with Jesus. He is our Lord is our King. He's our shepherd. He's our friend and that being so, there's every reason we could feel comfortable communicating with him, but when it comes to praying and asking for things Jesus said that's that's the father's business. Remember Jesus said. Elsewhere you know which of you fathers if your child asks him for an egg, will give him a scorpion if he has for officially given separately so so also, if you are earthly fathers know how to give good thanks future. How much more your heavenly father give good things to those who ask him. So Jesus everywhere talked about praying to the father exegesis himself to Jesus prayed to the father. He taught his disciples that they did so.

I believe that it's normative to pray to the father not to Jesus but to but to speak to Jesus is not set was nothing wrong with doing that and you know there are a couple of I think there's three cases I used to say there's only two, but I thought of another. There's about three cases I know the Bible or somebody after Jesus ascension did speak to him.

One of them was Stephen.

What is Maidstone, he said, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. He saw Jesus standing by the right hand of God. So he addressed Jesus and also John in the book of Revelation. The last pronounces. Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus, that's a prayer addressed to Jesus course. He's looking to Jesus to both both Steven and John have visions of Christ and speak to him. I think I would to now there's one other case that I only recently considered in this connection that is in second Corinthians 12 where Paul said that he is the start of flesh.

He asked the Lord three times to remove it and he said to me, my my grace is sufficient for now we see that he says he asked the Lord he doesn't say start Jesus can be hard to father, but he could be talking Jesus is usually the Lord means Jesus in the New Testament so we could say strategies but notice this Jesus spoke back to him. In other words, it sounds to me that this question, these questions were given to Jesus. Perhaps when Paul was in a two way conversation with Jesus which prayer usually is not a two-way conversation, but it was a unique situation.

I think it may been one of the several times that Jesus actually appeared to we read in the book of acts. Jesus appeared ball a few times after his conversion, and it may be that in one of those conversations are like Stephen and John who were seeing Jesus spoke to him. That could be applied possible term there, but Polly says in Ephesians 3 that his norm is to browse into the father of Jesus and asked the father for things. So what we can say is, there are a few occasions where people speak to Jesus on record in the Bible. After his ascension, and therefore cannot be wrong. On the other hand, if we want to pray as Jesus taught us to pray, will pray to the father that being I think the balance of okay that's very interesting with her ever be a time when the Christian religion pray to the Holy Spirit.

I don't know of any specific case of that ever happening in the Bible, we know that Ezekiel Ezekiel chapter 37 was told to prophesy to the spirit.

Although the word could be translated breath in his face.

It's when the dry bones of assembled into bodies and they don't have a breath in them is told to prophesy to the spirit and in the spirit. The breath came into them, that might be seen as appealing to the spirit asking the script.

I don't I don't really I don't really know that a case of people praying to the Holy Spirit in the Bible. Again, I don't think it be wrong because I don't think there's that much difference between frankly the father the son and the Holy Spirit rethink what is one God were talked about but but we are specifically told to address the father with a person.

That's what I would okay that was very helpful. Thank you state all right. God bless you. Talk to my all right. Our next caller is Rodney calling from Detroit, Michigan running welcome to the neuropathic circle. Thanks for taking my call. My question is from Daniel chapter 7, I thought I'd give you a Daniel question saying that you said you speak on Danielle. I think this weekend though that I give you a quick Daniel question nine.

I know in our Revelation chapter 13 it talks about the beast with seven heads and 10 horns, and I know a lot of people, including myself, believe that that's talking about the end time antichrist you have to calm the antichrist and timolol or whoever I know you had said many times that you believe that it was a political system so like when I read Daniel chapter 7 with that talk about the four beast.

The fourth beast, which I believe is referring to this beast. In Revelation, because it says it has 10 at 10 horns like the one in Revelation.

It says in Daniel seven that this beast is representing of a kingdom, but it also says in Daniel 717 that that beast also represents the king so it does represent a kingdom, but it also represents the kingdom. So my question is why in Revelation 13. Wouldn't you see that beast not only representing a kingdom and also a particular king that rules that kingdom well every kingdom has a king. That's true, and in Daniel chapter 7 that fourth kingdom is the Roman Empire and the Roman Empire did have a number of individual kings at different times, every, every Emperor was an individual king. It was one kingdom, but it always had one king, and that's usually true that a kingdom so however the beast is not said to be a king in Revelation, the beast is said to be a beast that has 10 horns and seven heads, and these are kings to 10 horns are 10 kings in the heads are seven kings saw and they're all part attached to the same entity so that the entity itself is not an individual king. It would save.

It seems like it's it's an investment.

Daniel seven references that came in Daniel 717 at the images yet. The images in Revelation come from all parts of the Old Testament and they don't use them always the same way as the Old Testament does, for example, the two witnesses are said to be the two olive trees, but in Zechariah for which that image comes from the two olive trees, ours are Zerubbabel and Joshua which no one believes the two witnesses are them. It's that images will test are often taken and reworked in Revelation, sometimes with slightly different twist.

I'm out of time for that. We got 1/32 break coming up. I'll be right back for another 30 minutes. You listen to the narrow path. Tell your family to everyone you know about the Bible radio show that has nothing to give you the narrow path with Grant when today's radio show in Denver go to your social and send a link to that narrow path.com, one can find on your teachings blog article teachings and archives of the narrowband radio shows and tell them to listen live right here on the radio.

Thank you for sharing with their supported the narrow path. Greg radio broadcast Steve Greg and we are live for another half-hour taking your calls if you like the program. If you have questions about the Bible of the Christian faith, or different view from the house.

Feel free to call this number it's 844-484-5737. Right now it looks like perhaps one line is open 844-484-5737 and by the way they did the last caller a Rodney from Michigan mentioned over the air that I'm to be speaking on the book of Daniel this weekend. That's true if you live in Southern California I'm going to be speaking in Buena Park in Orange County tomorrow night, 6 o'clock. We've got to him to give introduction and overview of the book of Daniel, and you're welcome to join us there if you'd like to the information about that, then you is to be found on our website. The narrow path.com that's the narrow path.com under the tab that says announcements find tomorrow's date in the announcements at the August 29 and Daniel see the place and time and all that stuff and would love to see if you're available to come join us. All right to go back to the phones now and are talking next to Steve from Bellevue, Washington, Steve talking to the narrow path. Thanks for calling my call you helping me with my conversation with a friend of mine believed in the traditional view of hell previously to objections were first translated sell that counsel night.

We need to accept that, you know that one objection in the second, the parable of the sheep and goat and you you go to eternal punishment or eternal life, and it can turn what you can't have a different translation of the same word came okay well as far as Gahanna being translated as hell at the Nicene Council again like yourself I don't know where he got that information. Maybe it was but why would that have any authority on the why would it matter how somebody at some time hundreds of years after Jesus time, you know, translated his word Gahanna Jesus, by the way, is the one in the New Testament who uses the word Gahanna James mentions it briefly, but not to refer to hell. He talks about how the tongue is a fire and it's on flames of Gehenna Army. I guess it's supposed to refer to a flaming place called to him. He doesn't doesn't tell us much about the place Jesus beyond James is the only one who uses the word Gahanna in the Greek New Testament and the real question is did he use it the way that the rabbis used it which there was a certain way.

The rabbis use the word Gahanna and they did mean hell but or did he use it the way the prophets used it Isaiah and Jeremiah had made reference to Gahanna venues that were these in Hebrew the Valley of him. The Greek for the Valley on his Gahanna so Jesus may have used it the way the prophets did or he may have used it the way that the rabbis did. Now my reading of Jesus's tells me that he was much more influenced by the prophets, and by the word of God, that he was by the traditions, the rabbis, so I'm going to lean toward him using at the way the prophets used which were referred the Valley of him him but it's true.

Rabbis already in Jesus day were using the word Gahanna to refer to hell and and and so the early church too large to be followed that so that's one mean he's he's got a point.

It's not the point has nothing to do with the Nicene Council's point has to do with the fact that Gahanna was one of the ways that that the rabbis spoke of hell, but it's not the only really Gehenna is used in Scripture and the question course of whether Jesus accompanied the rabbis or spoke like the prophets would be the real issue I I'm I'm on the side of the prophets myself now in Matthew 25, 46 were Jesus said about the sheep and the goats of the righteous go off into eternal life, but the wicked into eternal punishment. Your friend is saying what the word eternal is the same word in both places. He's correct I audience is the Greek word in both places now I audience life and I audience punishment are set in juxtaposition, so he saying well if our eternal life is forever.

Then the punishment must refer to the same word is used for both.

Well, it's a little more nuanced than that. The word ion is can refer to things that are eternal. But it doesn't always.

There's many things in the New Testament and the old. The Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, where the word ion is is not refer to things that are forever very things that are just they last a long time now.

If I audience means and some people scholars believe it means enduring foreign age or for ages then it would just mean, long time. It last for a long time for ages, and therefore something that last forever would certainly be ion is because it last for ages and endlessly but also something last for ages, but wasn't forever would also be on the same word could be used for both of them. So if the punishment was not eternal, but the life was the word ion is still used for both of them and so that would be my thought about that. Now the word punishment. There in in the Greek is one that some have felt should be translated correction because the word in earlier days than than the New Testament is the word meant correction.

Actually the word in Greek meant to prune the tree and it came in the Greek lives me correction that some people say by the time of the New Testament, it didn't mean correction or adjustment punishment. Well, even if it meant punishment.

That doesn't mean it could mean punishment as correction and some people think that what Jesus was saying is that when people go to this ion is played condition that it's a condition of correction. This would be what the more universal reconciliation people be inclined to say so there's different views on this and that's why would a book on three different views I don't I don't take any one of the views but certainly both of your friend statements can be answered are people who hold other views this there not slam dunks okay and probably the easier answer is they should have used a different word in a minute. In that verse 46 right but we have to decide on our own. Yeah while they do have to use a different work or a president have a different as if you say this person is going into ageless life or age ages long life and this ongoing is ages long correction or punishment. Well, that's true, and it is true even if the one who went to eternal life.

The ages long life actually never ends.

It is certainly ages that would be that would be information for another another conversation that it wouldn't be incorrect.

If I say I'm going to live for ages. You know you don't know if that means regular forever. Just for a long time but it could mean regular forever. You have get that from other comments about right. Okay good I appreciate how tasty. Thanks your call You okay our next caller is Dale from Sacramento Dale, welcome to the narrow path.

Thanks for calling and had my question today is about the land and many people believed it was the regional land and many people believed it was a worldwide flood correct and yesterday I heard a minister here in Sacramento on the air who said that the was not was no mountains like Mary in any high mount back then and so consequently not everything you can exist and I believe it was a regional line. I don't believe it was a global flood.

Q what you believe the outlook is arguments on both sides. I do believe in a global flood that it doesn't alarm if someone believe something else. Many times people who believe in a regional flood would argue it still killed all the people because after me, the human race they would say hadn't really spread out over the whole earth yet and therefore the reason they lived in was the region slotted and that there be no read reason to flood the whole world. If God's intentions to punish the wicked people in the world. If that could be done with the region for the refund. The problem I have with the regional flood is to some of the language. Now it does. There are several place in regards to how it waters cover the whole earth, but the word earth in the Hebrew arete's can mean the land and that could mean a region so that you can't really prove much from the fact that says the whole earth, but it does say there were mountains and said the flood covered the highest mountains by I believe it was the cupids wasn't, I think, is 18 feet, if not mistaken). It's been a while since I Ararat because it landed on and that afterwards right right now what you're the preacher you heard who said there were no mountains where he's not. If you say there are no mountains at all. He's not correct because the publisher talks about mountains were covered but what he may be saying is that the mountains exist were not as tall as now that he said that yeah that is okay as is his belief is probably that during the time that the earth was covered with water. There's a lot of seismic activity. A lot of movement of the tectonic plates it would not disturb the boat on top per se so much because the whole world was covered water there be no place for tsunamis to go. For example, but but that a lot of mountain ranges from tectonic plates bumping up against each other. The time might have risen at that time and could even explain why you find you will see life fossils on the tops of high mountains now you know it looks like they were covered with water. There see life fossils on them. But hard to measure the water being above Mount Everest, but if Mount Everest was below the water. It may been a small amount of the time.

One thing Steve teacher. I doubt that India called the Sentinel and on an island in the archaeologist said that those people have been there for 60,000 years and maddeningly discovered fire yet was not 60,000 years ago right and most people are there today and if you trust if you trust the sociologist anthropologist dates then you're right that would prove they are the flood not to be worldwide. I don't.

I find that many times the dating site issues for things that are very ancient is sometimes based on a certain speculation. Certainly they calculate from other things that they think are reliable but they mean when they talk of the age of fossils. For example, I think they been way off and lately dinosaurs died out 70 million years ago and yet you find dinosaur fossils to have soft tissue in the bones you know which wouldn't be the case if the 70 million years old. Scientist just what they do is they they have a idea of how old civilizations on how old species are how old parts the world are so forth, and the they basically read data through that paradigm. Everyone reads through paradigm of some kind.

I mean, semi-single Steve you're just doing that to be true. I am I am at the NIM and others due to everyone does. Nobody reads data without a bias. Everybody has some idea of what is going to point to and what and how it should be best fit into things. My worldviews different than that of the secular worldview and therefore I don't think that they are looking at that data missing the same way I would but I'm not a scientist, but then the Bible scholar so you just had to decide who we can trust, which is the Bible or trusted people who don't believe the Bible and what you know I'm not saying that you who believe in an old earth or who believe in a local flood I'm saving up believers certainly correct that when distracted get the top of the mountain that the theologians will target somebody said this is yeah I'm not. I don't have an dog in this in this fight. I don't care about the age of the earth. I don't care at the age you don't care how widespread the flood was but I will say is one who reads my Bible and is my best understand its comments in the way that I believe they were intended to be taken. I personally go with the young earth in a worldwide flood. But if it turned out, otherwise it wouldn't rattle me even a little bit just me that I was okay.

I let you go but okay. Let's talk to Mike from Sacramento, California. Mike looked into the narrow path cancer calling good questions about marriage actually my wife and I were both previously married and in my marriage, my right left knee and then I tried to reconcile that with with Ashley pastor and that release me from the marriage marriage. It may ask you, why did she divorce you. I hadn't gotten around that a lot of money in. She wanted to use all that money to start that most of it. I said no more, and then she decided that since no longer be. She obviously didn't have the grounds that, so I would say that she's an unbeliever. Now she may claim to be a believer but it's one thing to claim believe it's not going to prove it by your actions.

If you are not following Jesus you're not a believer. Okay, so Paul said it's an unbeliever is made a believer in the unbeliever departs the believer he said is not under bondage in that case, so you are free according to what the Bible says on that subject. Now it's the other party has been previously married and the claim has been to stop talking to humans and some soda meant something and she divorce them and talk to a pastor about the same as leaving that's going to be a matter ask me a call that's different people make differently. I asked her why. Talking to just recite long period of time and know it's frustrating but I didn't see as grounds for divorce.

I got but then I don't see much as grounds for to tell you the truth, you couldn't get me to divorce. You can get me to file for divorce.

Even I had an adulterous wife once had several affairs and I would divorce her either because I don't believe in divorce, but I do believe divorce. I don't believe in divorce, but I do believe that some people are legitimately free from marriages because their partners actions now depends on what actions we consider. Paul did say that the unbeliever departs that the believer is not under bondage did this is where people make difficult when a husband stops talking to his wife. Has he departed, seems like it was he was here professing Christian and who did any pastors try to counsel him about this on no not to my knowledge, how long did this go on.

How long did he not talk to her almost 9 months and she has no idea why he was just in a mental yeah I'm not sure I'll say this, I would love to be able to say hey that's a clear-cut case she can. She was free to remarry and maybe she was. God knows I know in my case, I'm a little stricter than a lot of people would be. It may be that a number of behaviors on the part of the man or woman toward their spouse might be regarded as abandonment even if they don't leave the house that many people are sent abuse that way in?

Talk to your wife be similarly you know, abusive what Lemanski is what what has her her mute husband done since and has he remarried was to just live in is a solitary guy or talk to you live and allow yeah well in her situation. Her situations is marginal.

In my opinion. I mean, I do believe that it is possible for someone to abandon the marriage without leaving the house that many people find it convenient to stay with the person they married because it's less expensive than getting another house. It's that it was food served and things like that.

But that doesn't mean that they're willing to be a spouse.

And that's and therefore it's hard to know whether that should be called up and I it sounds like a good case could be made for it that she was abandoned by him, but I honestly don't know what what was in his head before I would be able be sure I'd have to probably converse with him about what were you thinking that and I'm not the final arbiter of these things obviously God is so I would say it's it's a borderline situation with her. In your case I don't believe there's any problem with United remarry married To quit smoking in mind and that she was under the influence of drugs and then he demolished your ex-wife know my wife only OIC okay so you he wasn't talking to her and she shows second has an edge that I was trying to quit smoking with John Shan tax which they said that she is mentally and under bad times, she remarried men and then they got divorced. Yes, I have to say this is this is a complicated and not a clear-cut case and one that I can't really settle in the format of the brief talk on it tonight on the radio show marriage that is not biblically put together options to someone have well if a person is married and it's clearly an adulterous marriage to one person left their spouse to marry somebody else and they didn't have grounds to do it then did then the marriages is fraudulent. The marriage is adulterous if the marriage is not a marriage in God's sight. It may be a legal marriage in the state side of the state doesn't determine the sex goddess and so if it was a clear-cut case of an adulterous marriage, then I would say it would be one that has to be broken up and and reconciliation sought with the spouse that was abandoned wrongfully. Now I don't know that any of I don't know if either of her spouses were abandoned wrongfully. Her second trust divorced her that wasn't her doing her yes and first spouses and that gray area as far as I'm concerned, but her situation is is questionable because I would not say it's a clear-cut case of adultery and if it was, I'd have to say I'm afraid it's not a marriage you know and you have to probably break up but it's not clear-cut. I certainly would never break up a second marriage without having clarity that its understatement saw urine AI can't. I can't really settle this for you with the little well if you if you willingly continued in an adulterous relation knowingly. The Bible says no adulterer will inherit eternal life or no internal to the kingdom of God. But you know if a person is married to somebody and they don't think it's adultery and Dave and they done their best to try to sort it out biblically and they don't and it's unclear and they make the wrong call and when they go to heaven. God says listen, that was not that was adulterous marriage.

I think that the fact that they didn't think it was adultery or didn't. I didn't have good enough start of reason to know that it was would would not count against them. I think that if you if it really is adultery. I think God would convict you about it and make it make you feel you would be able to thank you very much and I while I am sympathetic with you I hate this kinda calls because divorce is always are so complicated and are so many factors and I don't believe in divorce, but I do believe that when people get divorced, sometimes they have grounds and I can't. I can't can't condemn them.

It's just that interpreting the grounds is a little bit ambiguous at times and I know this is something you can't just in a radio show call get all the facts and give all the information how writers talk to Michael from the bay area. Michael look into the narrow path expedites estimates in San Francisco. Thank you.

My question is about Matthew 27 where Judas hanged himself and it seems like it can be read two different ways.

The Judas the traitor saw that he was condemned and repented and brought back the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders saying I've sinned and betraying innocent blood. Anyway, my question is does Judas see that he is condemned or did he see that Jesus condemned. I believe that succulent when he saw that Jesus was condemned initially when he located in Everett Jesus over and when he saw that Jesus was condemned see some people think the Judas and betraying Jesus didn't think Jesus would die that he knew he was the son of God and the Messiah and that I felt and he felt that Jesus wasn't moving in the right direction fast as he is not that if you got them arrested. That would force Jesus hand to overthrow the Romans to save himself and to set up the kingdom and therefore when Jesus actually condemned to die and Jesus didn't do anything to stop it. That that Judas was surprised and we we don't know for sure that that's Judas's motive. That's a first common opinion and so weight when Judas saw that Jesus was condemned by think is when he realized he took the wrong thing. I could see the point of view because it comes right after you know Jesus is turned over but the other point of view is that it Judas really did repent that he wouldn't kill himself.

He would beg for forgiveness.

I agree it does say he repented with the word repent means to be sorry and that might be sorry that you was condemned by the priest inscribes any type to be celebrated well yeah it's hard to say we don't know exactly where his sorrow lay Paul says in second Corinthians 7 there's a sorrow that a worldly sorrow that leads to death is a godly sorrow that Reid leads to repentance. His his sorrow did not lead to him repenting before God, he repented, you know, in the sense that he was grieved. But when you repent before God, you are going kill yourself well and that that's true, but he was still under the influence of the devil then you you want wanted to repent to God right right side. I don't believe Judas was truly a repentant believer at the end of it all.

Right any way. Currently there's two different ways because I what follows Ely when he said he was condemned, he might've thought long to be celebrated like betrayer. Sometimes they come to be celebrated Benedict Arnold by Kennedy English and make them a hero and then you know he repented did it because he wanted to be. Could be one of the things going on procedure call routing time are you listening to the narrow path radio broadcast my name Steve Greg and we are live Monday through Friday. We by the time on radio stations and demand notice. If you listening for the hour went on a commercial selling don't have sponsors. We are just listener supported. If you'd like to help us pay the radio station is on their that can be done. You can write to the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593. You also do that from our website.

The narrow path.com. Also, the narrow path, under now since you can see where I'm speaking in Bonaparte California on Daniel tomorrow night. Hope to see some of you have a good weekend –