In this episode of the Radio Ranch, hosts Roger Sayles and Brent Winters engage in a deep discussion on a variety of topics, including the historical and theological aspects of Bible translations, the implications of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the concept of predestination. The conversation delves into the intricacies of different Bible versions, such as the King James Bible and the New American Standard Bible, examining their historical contexts and the motivations behind their translations. The hosts also explore the role of evidence in understanding biblical texts and the importance of personal responsibility in interpreting religious and legal documents.
Additionally, the episode touches on the historical manipulation of identity and citizenship, particularly in relation to the Fourteenth Amendment and its impact on American citizens. The hosts discuss the importance of understanding one's true identity in the context of law and religion, and how this understanding can influence one's perception of freedom and sovereignty. The episode concludes with a reflection on the power of naming and identity, emphasizing the significance of personal choice and the influence of historical narratives on contemporary beliefs.
[00:00:12]
Unknown:
Forward moving and focused on freedom. You're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network. This mirror stream is brought to you in part by mymitobust.com. For support of the mitochondria like never before. A body trying to function without adequate mitochondrial function is kinda like running an engine without oil. It's not gonna work very well. It's also brought to you by snapfat.com. That is snap,phat,.com. It's also brought to you by the Preyf International terahertz frequency wand through iteraplanet.com. Thank you so much for joining us, and welcome to the program.
[00:01:45] Unknown:
As would we, Alvin, and we're here to take another swing at it on this Friday, the nineteenth eighteenth. Excuse me. Eighteenth. Desi Ocho. Eighteenth of, July, and, we're gonna have mister Brent Winters with us. I think if he's not here already, he'll be here shortly. I'm sure. And, Roger Sales and Brent Winters on the Radio Ranch, we have a number of folks that help us us extend our reach, and the guy that knows all about that's Paul Veener. So, Paul, if you'd come on and please give these people proper credit and identification for helping us spread our message and extend our reach. Good morning, everybody.
[00:02:27] Unknown:
I would be happy to do that, Raj. We're on radiosoapbox.com. Thanks to our buddy, Paul, Paul English. You know, he hasn't joined us, in quite a while for a Friday show. I hope he can Well.
[00:02:42] Unknown:
Squeeze us in sometimes. He's, he's been absent for a while. Yes. Yeah. Just a little bit. Love having me. Blayton, let me say that.
[00:02:51] Unknown:
We're also on eurofolkradio.com. Thanks to pastor Eli James, and we're on Global Voice Radio Network, My Pet Project, and the links to Eurofolks Global Voice and free conference call, the numerous links to free conference calls so you can actually join us live on the show. Those are all on our website, thematrixdocs,d0cs,.com. And, well, that's about it.
[00:03:19] Unknown:
You know those, those thousand seats you keep talking about?
[00:03:22] Unknown:
Yeah. Yep. You might wanna Yeah. And I have 2,000 more waiting. 2,000 more seats waiting in the wings.
[00:03:29] Unknown:
You might wanna send the help out and dust those seats off. Okay? So, just a tip. Just a tip. Okay. There's some, there's some pretty pretty large things brewing in the background. We're gonna talk about it tomorrow. But today with Brent, we don't wanna take all that time and distraction because we like having Brent and Frannie along. Hi, Frannie. With us. Lots happening. Boy, I'm I mean, lots happening. So, anyway, did did Brent show up yet? I think I saw Yes. He did. Up there. Right? Okay. Both Brent and Francine are here. I saw Francine and her lovely Auburn hair there in that picture. Yes. I did. Good morning, both of you, actually.
I hope all is well. Brent, did you have a good week?
[00:04:15] Unknown:
Yeah. I did. Oh, yeah. Long as I'm north of dirt, I keep saying. Long as I'm north of dirt, I'm having a good day and a good week. I'm thankful to be here. I'm thankful to be anywhere. And Yeah. I hope you feel the same way. I do. Yeah. You do. Yeah. Ned turned 99 here recently.
[00:04:38] Unknown:
Is that right? God bless him, Brent. Yeah. He's in pretty good health too, isn't he? Well, he's still locomoting. And,
[00:04:46] Unknown:
but I'm not and he's still kicking, but not kicking as hard as he used to. But it quite a change for some of you. Many of you have experienced this, and I haven't yet. In other words, I haven't lost my parents yet, and I'm as I told mom the other day well, I've told her more than once more than the other day, and and it's something to be able to discuss the the advantages and the disadvantages of disadvantages of the different brands of hearing aids with your own son. You know? That kind of thing. And, but I do understand my, my I do understand old age. I've watched them for a long time, of course, and and, now that I'm there's more behind me than there is ahead of me by far.
I understand their attitudes a little better. I can feel the touch of it. You know? It's all there. I was just thinking the other day. I told my brother, I remember back when our great granddad was, exactly the same age I am now. And, the things he used to do and the comments he used to make, and and he goes way back. My great granddad, he was born in had one I had two grandparents born in 1888, and, then I had another one born in 1871. Grandma Douglas, 1871. Grandma grandma Hudson, grandma Mackenzie. 1875, see, both of them were born before Custer's last stand. And then Right. And right after the civil war. Yeah. And their parents were both involved. Well yeah. Yeah. Their parents were both veterans of the war. And then, my other grandparents were born around the turn of the century.
I mean, nineteen o five, nineteen o three, '19 1897. My granddad was born in '96 or '7. I think it was '7. But, to talk to them now, I wish I could ask them more, questions because my questions would be more to the point and more intelligent. You know? I remember my great granddad, he he would, you know, he lived in a different time. And when I say a different time, he would not be acceptable, period. Hardly anywhere in polite society in America today because I know what he thought and what he and you can tell a man by the jokes he tells. Right? You can tell what his attitudes are, what he likes, what he doesn't like. Both of my granddads were blackballed by the masons in the oil field.
You know, to be in the oil to have an oil field job was a plumb of a job even if you got awful dirty and worked hard because there was money pouring out of the ground and the people that worked in the drilling rigs and the pumping rigs and the pulling rigs, and they did all my father pull he was in the worked, pulling rigs, pulling pulling the rods out of wells. And my granddad was a driller, and, my other granddad was a, we call them roustabouts. He well, dad did that too. He, you know, he pulled the rigs and kept them pumping. He operated the powerhouse, and all the powerhouse back then operated on natural gas because it came right out of the well. Why spend money on energy to pump the pumps if you had it coming right out of the well?
So they that operated those, then that course there wasn't electricity anyway, so couldn't use that. But now they're all they run electric lines to the oil pumps. But, to hear him tell stories about the oil boom and the things that happened and the crazy things that happened. Of course, men are dangerous and passionate creatures, and so that's what drives history. History doesn't drive men. Economics doesn't drive men. Economics condition, outward forces. No. No. Men are the masters of those things, and they're what they're and they're they're evil or lack thereof is what drives history.
Men drive history. History doesn't drive men. By the way, if you went to public fool system, you'll see and remember that all the textbooks of history were written to show that the environment controlled men and they were victims. Men are victims. That's the whole point of history to the left, and that and the left in control all the history books still does. Oh, yeah. Of the fool system since going way back. I mean, even during the days of Horace Mann in the eighteen hundreds. Of course, the difference was back then, taxpayer and the governments didn't control well, not taxpayer. The governments did not control the school system in America because as much as we believe is true, they've been lied to us.
The government did not control and provide education to most of America even as back in the nineteen twenties. Well, in nineteen twenties, it was coming on strong. Were there public schools in America during Puritan America in the sixteen hundreds? Yes. But that doesn't mean the government can paid for them and control them. That's what's not said. Public education was important, but that was the job of the churches, and they did a very good job by my granddad. Mother granddad, the one that was born in '24, he was a school teacher.
He taught school for twenty seven years until they drove him out, the in the one room schoolhouses around home. And, when he passed in 1983, we received different things from him. I received his desk. And his desk was like a lot of desks were until really very recently. It's made of wood and pretty heavy, and it had a drawer right under where your legs slip under the desk. Lap lap drawer? Yeah. The lap where you pull it out and your pencils are in there and all that. And so I was going through nothing in it. I looked in the drawers. I pulled that drawer out, and I didn't see anything. Well, I thought I'd better check with my hands, so I just reached back in there and felt around. I felt some kind of a envelope or something. I pulled it out, and it was a an old Manila envelope, had a string on it to kinda had a you wrapped the string around a little button that sticks. Right? I remember that. You remember. Yeah. And it was old. I mean, I didn't know how old. And I opened it up, and I pulled out about, oh, six or eight papers in in his handwriting on lined paper.
And it was a paper he had written when he was in school, and the question presented that he was, discussing was, will will the will the government this is the nine this is in 1925 or 1927 along in there. Will the government in America be able to bear the burden of public education? That's rather fascinating. That was in the nineteen twenties. He in other words, this was an upcoming thing, and he saw it coming. And so he was he wrote a paper when he was in school on that subject. And it was handwritten because typewriters were expensive. Nobody really had them. Today, you know, everybody's got a computer in school, but they couldn't even afford typewriters. And if they had one, he wouldn't know how to type anyway.
Although typing was taught, took my grandpa five years to get through high school. He graduated when he was, see, I say, 22 years old. Yeah. And, well, longer than five year. Well, anyway, he graduated when he was 22 because he had to lay out because his father demanded that he work in the tobacco fields, and he did. But then he wanted to go off of bed, and he kept trying to go back to school. He told me when he graduated high school, he went to the high school graduation, and I I went in the same building where I went to school, and that was back in, Wow. In the twenties. And he said the guest speaker, you know, at the commencement, gave a roaring speech about something. I don't know what. He said he didn't remember the speech, but he remembered his his final line was he was trying to encourage them to go do more. You know? Don't just stop your education here.
And he said, well, at the end of it, and he said, whatever you do, don't stop in a place like this. That was his final line. Of course, he didn't intend it to come across that way. It kinda was ambiguous, like, don't don't stop in a place like where he was there speaking. But he he kept trying to go to school, Spitz and Fitz, and I got to thinking he even got a job in this little town as a shoe salesman, selling Florsham shoes. That was back in the '19 you got some of those, Roger?
[00:13:39] Unknown:
I used to have. That's how I started.
[00:13:42] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. He got a job selling Florsham shoes and, and he sold for I mean, he was working in a shoe store, but he sold Florsham shoes by himself just independently for the rest of his life. And everybody around home, they want shoes. They go to Mel. They go to Mhmm. Mel Mel Hudson to get a pair of shoes. They're famous for those wingtips. Oh, he had all that stuff. Yeah. And I I, well, he I I got his worn out shoes, but, getting back to my granddad, so he sold sold shoes. Well, I heard later, of course, the one of the popular figures around where I grew up, maybe it was all over America probably, was, Frank James. Do you remember Frank hearing about Frank James, Roger? You you not Jesse James's brother, was he? Right. That was Jesse's brother. And Okay. Frank and Jesse were all the boys around where I lived where he was the hero. And if you hadn't made the the pilgrimage to Merrimack Caverns, you were nobody. And what I was growing. Well, I mean and Merrimack Caverns, for those of you that, went to the public fool system, never heard of Jesse James and Frank, Merrimack Caverns were the hideout of Jesse James. And it was a it's a cave. It's still there down in the Ozarks.
Of course, Jesse did you know Jesse and Frank robbed banks as far east as Delaware, believe it or not? I mean, they were all over. Minnesota. You know? Mhmm. Oklahoma, Texas. They were Arkansas, they were particular, but they they enjoyed traveling, apparently. Kentucky, they robbed banks everywhere. Mhmm. And, but they did their base operation course was in what they called Little Dixie along the Missouri River and was Mhmm. Right near where Harry Truman was from. Mhmm. And, so dad's or granddad sold shoes. Well, Frank James, when he finally turned his pistols in to the governor of Missouri, said, whatever you do with me, I'm throwing myself at your mercy.
Of course, the governor, that was a big political boom for him to have the have the guns of Frank James. Of course, Jesse had been shot in the back by Bob and Charlie Ford. Do you remember them? How they, just a couple of cowards. You know? They the dirty the dirty little coward that shot mister Howard. We all knew that song where the Wasn't that ain't that where ace, aces and eights come from? Wasn't that the hand he was holding when he got shot? But you're close. That was, Wild Bill Hickok. Oh, okay. Ace. Yeah. I get my outlaws mixed up. So Yeah. This is American history, but you remember you learn all that stuff when you're you're an American kid in our in our day. You just have all these these, sagas in your head. Well, but Jesse and Frank were closer to home. See, Bill well, Bill was from close to home too as was, Wyatt Earp.
He was from close to home. He grew up on Cornfield Farms back in that neck of the woods. Well, north. They were in, down north quite a ways, frankly. That was up near the Quad Cities in Streeter in Quincy, Illinois where they grew up. But, they were, while Bill died in Deadwood, South Dakota, where they say, he violated his own principles and sat at the card table without his back to the wall. Yep. And anybody killed as many people, like, as many men as he did, would be a darn fool to ever not ever sit with your back not to the wall. I mean Yep. Everybody wants a piece of a killer. You know? Yep. That's true. Well, go ahead, Roger. What you I was gonna say I've got an interesting insert here is, my my first wife.
[00:17:42] Unknown:
Her brother was a big outlaw. He was an outlaw fanatic. And and he'd take the the my my my first wife was a twin, fraternal, not ID. Uh-huh. And, when they were young, you would take them for two weeks all out over the West chasing these tombstones and and the graves of these guys.
[00:18:03] Unknown:
Oh, yeah. People go people it becomes hero worship to them. It kinda was. Yeah. Yeah. Well, us as boys, you know, we felt that way about Jesse and Frank. Well, truth is Jesse was a murderer, a very vicious murderer, as a matter of fact. Oh, you know, he's got plenty of good excuse. I get it. I mean, the the union soldiers tried to kill his stepfather, hung him up by his neck and tortured him, then they'd let him down trying to find find, information on another, another have any pardon me?
[00:18:38] Unknown:
Somebody's talking to me. Hold on just a second. Hey, Wahid. Could you please put your mute on?
[00:18:45] Unknown:
Thank you, Wahid. Well, Jesse was a killer.
[00:18:49] Unknown:
Oh, hold it. He ain't got the message yet. Well Can you can you mute him, Paul, please?
[00:18:55] Unknown:
But, but, Jesse, that happened to him when he was a young boy. And, of course, you do that kind of thing to people and their families. They're not gonna forget it, and Jesse never did forget it. And he was against the railroads because they were everybody knew around Missouri and everywhere else in the West, the railroads were controlled by the elite of New England, and they were the ones behind that terrible awful war and driving the fort the North and the war and the Vatican and the the Talmudists were were controlling the leaders in the South, not to mention the fantasies they had about sir Walter. What was that guy's name?
Walter Scott? Yeah. Wrote Ivanhoe, and everybody was reading that book and thought they were all, descendants of the Scottish highlanders. Well, the Scottish highlanders were scoundrels to the nth degree, made made the scoundrels everywhere else in the world look like girl scouts. But that's the kind of foolishness that foments war that should not occur. Well, any rate, Jesse, buddy, when it happens to you, it happens to you. I'm not justifying Jesse's murders, but when we were growing up, so Jesse, Bob and Charlie Ford, the the dirty little cowards that shot mister Howard, and that was the alias he took, after he tried to get out of crime, which was really impossible.
I mean, crime, well, he's robbing banks. Of course, they were controlled by the elite and the and the railroads and the banks. That's why they were many people looked at them as heroes, and there were two newspapers in Missouri, one in Kansas City, and the other one was the Kansas City paper, and the other one was the St. Louis Post Dispatch. And there were editors there that, when when, Jesse when Bob and Charlie killed Jesse, shot him in the back in his own house, having having been having been offered, food and lodging in, Jesse's house.
Well, by the way, Jesse James' father, his real father, who died when he was young, was a founder. One of the founders, they were cofounder of Jewell College. And Jewell College is near Kansas City is, one of this flagship Baptist fundamentalist always was fundamentalist Baptist school, still is, and it's been there for now for
[00:21:19] Unknown:
well over a hundred years. You know? Are they using the Scofield Bible?
[00:21:23] Unknown:
No. They're not that kind of Baptist. They're not good. Thank you. King James only crowd, but been a Christian. His father was Jesse's father was a Baptist preacher. And Jesse's mother and his all of them were fundamentally Baptist, but not fundamentalist bad. Well, no. That's and that's not what I mean to say. Let me get off of that subject. I don't wanna detract. Well, the King James Bible, the King James only crowd that if somebody want to talk about that, I'd talk about that. Roger likes the subject too, but getting back to Jesse. So, Frank Frank, I wouldn't often wondered. My granddad, see, when, Frank was, he got loose, he he just tried to take all sorts of jobs and make a living, and one of them was announcing horse races. And my, yeah, my granddad said that he remembered Frank James coming around and announcing races at Cumberland County and Clark County and, because he was popular, well known, and it drew a crowd if he was gonna announce the race. And that was back in the days, of course, when they didn't have, didn't have, microphones and all that. Well so he Frank did end up down in, I believe, Dallas Fort Worth area, and he was selling shoes just like my granddad. I wondered if my granddad didn't take that job because he thought that well, you know, well, Frank and Jesse were heroes. That's all I'm saying.
Well, the newspapers have built them up in that part of the world that they were heroes. See? That's what happened after Jesse died. Not that it was all true, but they still that was the perception people had. So Frank got a job down in Dallas as an old man selling shoes in a shoe store and some big boisterous this the story goes, big boisterous hotshot businessman, great big fella used to pushing his weight around and telling people off and ambitious. And I don't know whether he had oil money or cattle money or both or what, and he came into the shoe store. And the old man that was helping him was Frank James, but he didn't know who he was. And Frank had a lot of hitches in his get along. He was like Andy Jackson. Andy Jackson, he had so many like they say, he had so many rifle and pistol balls in him. He rattled like a bag of marbles when he walked. I mean, he was he was shot up. The boy you can say what you want about Frank and Jesse James, but they were no strangers to fighting, and they weren't afraid. Nobody called them cowards, and they defended themselves. There's nobody's the the verses we learned, there was never a man with a law in his hand that could take Jesse and Frank alive, and they didn't.
And they resorted to some pretty ugly tactics. The Pinkertons ended up killing Jesse's little sister with a firebomb grenade. They threw in Jesse's mother's house. Oh, they were terrible. Well, of course, Jesse had shot a Pinkerton detective and Allen Pinkerton. Allen Pinkerton's oh, he swore revenge. Pinkerton wasn't a good man. He did start a company that was successful, but he was a nasty SOB. Yes. Vengeful. You know? And he the law didn't mean much to him because he thought he was powerful. You know, he had the contract to protect the president of The United States before there was such a thing as secret service. Mhmm. You all say something, Roger?
[00:24:39] Unknown:
No. I'm just agreeing with you. I'm thinking about the, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid where they chased him all the way down to Bolivia. Oh, that was the Pinkertons. Oh, yeah. Just south just southeast to me, by the way. Yeah. Well, at that time,
[00:24:53] Unknown:
they thought that the American the Americans through the Pinkertons are the ones that invented they were private eyes, but they invented the whole idea of the Secret Service in America. And they were the ones that even I mean, everything. They were everywhere. They they all seen eye was there. They were so big, and they were so wealthy. The all seen eye was their was their symbol. And when you have and they invented the word private eye. Well, they had power to go and they they're the ones that built power to go into other countries looking for men that were wanted. By the way, Roger, it's we don't stop to consider the word outlaw as part of our common law tradition, but it's Yes. It's a well known part of, well known word, but we don't consider what that really means and how it works in our common law tradition.
But what's the difference? I went to listen to my grandson play music not long ago at a little country store in, up, you know, here in India in Indiana. But, anyway, this, this, they asked this old man to get up and play a few tunes, and he told jokes and played some pretty good songs. One of the songs he played was about the man that, took a roadkill of a dog and and made a a stole out of it for his wife and told her it was mink. It looked like mink. It was made out of greyhound hide, but he told the joke, what what's the difference between an outlaw and an in law?
And the answer is an, an outlaw is wanted. And, you know, well, so Frank and Jesse That's pretty good. Yeah. I thought I was there. It just because it's true, so it makes people laugh to varying degrees. But Frank Frank, Jesse was dead. Frank was trying to make a living. He was an old man. He wasn't moving fast enough for this fella in this shoe store. He's selling shoes down in Dallas, Fort Worth area. And this guy got to ride him and calling him names and a crippled old man wanted to send you out here and all that baloney. He said, what's your and and, he this this, younger fella, arrogant man said, don't you know who I am? He was some big businessman in Dallas, Fort Worth. But don't you know who I am? He said, no. Frank said, no. I don't know.
He told him. And he said, well, what's your name? I'll report you to the the management of this place. And he said, well, he said, my name is Frank James. And as the story goes, this fella had to leave because he had to go change his underwear. That's why I say, and you don't judge a book by the cover, and it is true. I had a friend that was a federal prison guard. I was on the other side of the world with him when we were boys, and he was from he's a French a French extraction, and we called him the kid. And, his last name well, I won't say his last name on the air, but it was a French name. And, he lived down well, okay, Roger. Yeah. You're in Louisianan. He lived down around Lake Charles. Oh, boy. That's way down deep in Cajun country. That's way down right at the bottom in the swamp. Yeah. Next to Texas.
Yeah. On that side, but still in the Delta. I understand. Oh, yeah. Well, I mean, we're talking about not just the Delta. Right? Did you know the the Mississippi Delta begins in Southern Illinois? No. I did not know that. And it yeah. And it's fans out. That's just a geological fact. It fans out as a giant fan and covers all of Mississippi and then over into Alabama and then going and covers all Louisiana, and there's no it's just from there, from that point in Southern Illinois, just North of Cairo, south, and it widens to hundreds of miles wide is the Delta. There's nothing probably feeds over into Texas around Beaumont.
[00:28:54] Unknown:
Corpus Christi, I've never known that for sure, but you from what you're saying, I can easily see it does.
[00:29:01] Unknown:
Yeah. That's solid delta mud, that whole area. And the Mississippi River is clear looking at the geology of it. The Mississippi Rivers has wandered all over that wide hundreds of miles wide Delta area and deposited that mud. Yeah. And that the way I get it, there there's not even a a limestone quarry or a rock quarry from, from Cairo, South New Orleans, and they ship all their limestone and rock out of Missouri, oder Ozarks, have for a long time, down the Mississippian barges. Otherwise, they wouldn't have any gravel roads down there. Well That's probably true. This guy was. And he used to do that until the corps of engineers got involved to straight shoot it down. I wouldn't doubt it. Now they think they run everything. Well, he was a prison guard down there in a federal prison when Castro released all the prisoners from his prisons, and they Very narrow boat lift. Do you remember that? Yeah. And all these convicts coming. Well, Americans didn't know what to do with them, so they stuck them all in federal prison until they could have a court hearing and, of course, decide whether to send them back or what they're gonna do.
And, so they're most of them or a lot hundreds of them. I just we're in this prison where this guy was a prison guard. And they took they they they finally figured out if the if the courts ruled against them and sent them back to Cuba that, Castro would just execute them all. So in their minds, it was logical. They say if we get sent back, we're gonna be killed. If we if we stay here, we may live. So they said, we haven't got anything to lose either way. We're gonna live. If we stay here, we're we'll just take over the prison. And they organized themselves over a long period of time, made weapons in the shop there and hid them, knives and and swords and whatnot.
And on a after a long time, at a certain time, on a certain signal, they took over the prison. Now my my friend told me that when they did that, they weren't too bad to get along with, but then again, as it turned out, but they were they didn't know what they were gonna do. They had weapons, and they they overpowered the guards real quick. They filled all the positions in the prison. You know, he said they even had everybody assigned to a certain guard's duty, to a certain counselor's duty, a certain secretary, a warden. They filled all positions in the prison.
They didn't just take it over the and and in a disorganized chaotic way. They took it over in a cosmos way order, but they took everybody prisoner. Well, my friend said he's a little tiny fellow, by the way, a Frenchman and, very, very short. We got that's why we called him the kid. And, they crawled him and this other guard crawled up into the overhead in one of the buildings hoping they wouldn't be found. Oh, they didn't know what was gonna happen. Oh, and so the kid said he was up there and this great big fella up there about six foot five, and, they could hear him banging around trying to get up into the overhead through the ceiling.
And he said this and, well, my friend told me they started he was starting to look for a piece of angle iron or something to defend himself. And this, great big fella was sobbing and crying. He didn't wanna die. Now my friend told me, he said, I like this fella. We've been friends for a long time, and I talked to him. I said, brace up. We gotta do something here. You know, you're not you're not, you don't wanna die without a fight. But he said, isn't this something? I said, I'm just making an observation. I'm not a brave guy. I just knew it was either, be defend myself or die, and I didn't wanna go down without a fight. But this great big fella who could have defended both of us single handedly, I had to spark him up to his duty.
I said, well, that is normal, isn't it often, Gary? He said, yeah. I guess it is. Yeah. Don't judge a book by its cover. And Frank Jane Frank James, really, even in his young age, didn't cut much of a figure. Just look at him. And he looked like a real peaceable. He had that calm looking visage on his face. He didn't look like a killer, but, boy, he'd been in some tough scrapes, and everybody knew it. And this big boisterous fella, right, when he found out he was dealing with Frank James, he instead of pushing around his weight, he found a quick exit, which is probably a smart thing to do. Of course, people in those days were armed often, you know, as they are today too, frankly, by the way. You certainly need to be today.
Yeah. No pun intended with saying frankly. I didn't I didn't aim to say it that way. But, yeah, that's Frank James. That's, what goes on. I don't know what we can talk about, Oh my god. That would be exciting to people here today except to say there's always something in the news. Well And you're you're making sure and keeping up with that. And you say you've even got plans about talking about something tomorrow.
[00:34:11] Unknown:
We do. I've got a interesting thing. I was gonna hold it through today and let the fellow that's put this together come on and tell us about it. It's pretty exciting. So we'll see. I got another, interview that I just booked. Well, I've been working with a guy for a couple of days, and it's a fellow on YouTube. It's got a YouTube channel, so we'll have to watch my language on that interview. And, his channel over there is called sowing prosperity. His name is Logan, which is pretty cool name. I like it. And, he's very interested in this part of the world, so he wants to talk to me about that and stuff. Anyway, that's booked on the last day of the month, the thirty first.
And then there's another, interesting one looming about a week later. We'll talk about it tomorrow. So a little suspense here, Brent, see if I can draw them back in tomorrow. You know? Always leave them clapping. Remember? Annie Oakley.
[00:35:08] Unknown:
Oh, yeah. Always leave them clapping. Now there's a interesting figure, and then not much is said about her. She had a lot of pluck. That's for sure.
[00:35:16] Unknown:
More than what we hear about her just as children. But yeah. Oh, yeah. Well, when I was in high school, we had a very advanced high school in in Anchorage there. Elevated stage and all this kind of stuff. They did a lot of plays, and, I I was in, Annie Get Your Gun. We did Annie Get Your Gun, and I played Thomas Luther Cody Keeler. Oh. And I had about two lines in there, but it's very interesting about her. You know? Mhmm.
[00:35:46] Unknown:
Annie, first time she shot a shot a firearm, it was a 12 gauge shotgun. It went off and broke her nose. That's true story. I've boogered her up a little bit. I mean, it it did ruin her look, so I'll just kinda bent her nose out of shape. I think we got it back. But, pop But she has a lot of veracity for her to come back and master the thing, doesn't she? Well, I was yeah. She was a girl, and, she grew up in Southern Ohio, by the way. And, of course, at that time, everybody in, Midwest, carried head guns, and people loved to eat squirrel and rabbit, if nothing else, and deer. There's always a lot of that around, groundhog, possum, and coon, and that helps, supplement the diet with a lot of protein. And they were out hunting rabbits, I think, and her brothers, and they gave her a shotgun.
She didn't know to be careful. I know the first time I pulled a trigger on a shotgun. If you haven't shot a shotgun, the people that are listening, you you will be shocked at the conventional power of such a little thing. Especially 12 gauge
[00:36:55] Unknown:
or lower or lower. They used to have lower than 12 gauge. Oh, I I had a 20 I had a 20 gauge. Oh, okay. One I shot. No. I don't mean up. I mean, not sixteen twenty. I mean, ten eight four. Oh, yeah. There's 10 gauge and eight gauge. I suppose they still make them. But And then you said that those duck hunters in Southern Louisiana back before they they outlawed this Uh-huh. Would tie one of those big lower gauge shotguns to the front of a P row. And those them duck them duck hunt them duck. The duck would come down there, and they'd use one of those lower odd shotguns, and they'd wipe out, like, 20 or 30 of them in one shot. Oh, yeah. That's called against the law. But yeah. Oh, yeah. It wasn't back then, but, well, they probably still do it. Tell you through. Well, yeah. Every once in a while, they catch them. And, of course, the feds have got treaties with other nations like Canada about That's a Larry Beecraft's,
[00:37:52] Unknown:
he did a wonderful legal memo on that. Oh, yeah. What what it came down to, I I think I know what you're talking about, was the key case, leading case on the subject, and it was had to do with state law versus federal law, which Correct. Yeah. And, It was Arkansas, I think, wouldn't it? Missouri. Okay. Close. Boys and well, they passed law. Missouri said you could shoot this certain kind of duck and hunt it, and they had a season. And there was already a treaty with Canada that we in America wouldn't be shooting these ducks. Migratory bird treaty. Yeah. So the whole thing then wound up in the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Supreme Court took that course. It's a constitutional question because treaties are a constitutional question. Correct. And they're they are, lawfully enforced just like any other law. But here's what they said.
They said when the general government in Washington DC passes a law, that is constitutional, in other words, the constitution has granted them authority to pass that law or treaty, then, the general government in Washington DC has occupied this is the words that the Supreme Court used, and now these are terms of legal art, has occupied the field of that subject of law. And once so that what they said and what they pointed out, which had been pointed out before, the jurisdiction of the general government in Washington DC is limited very much to the express provisions of the authority and the power granted. Our constitution grants them. If it's not expressly granted, then it they don't have that power. And our constitution of The United States has given given to the general government to Washington DC a very limited set of powers, not that many. But caveat.
But within that limited scope of power, the power and the authority of the federal government to legislate and have laws is right up to the edge and plenary. Occupy the field. That means like an army. You are in control of that subject if they're, the federal government is, if the law is constitutional under the authority of the constitution. No no one else is allowed to encroach if they don't want them to. That's the point they're making. And that's a particularly
[00:40:25] Unknown:
interesting example because you got these birds that fly over both countries. And and and and so both countries kinda have a say in it. Everybody wants to protect the wildlife or they should anyway. And states. Go ahead. Well, I was just gonna say, and, it's just an interesting question. And I remember that's one of Larry's, deals with nice legal briefs on his, website over there. Yeah. And,
[00:40:51] Unknown:
when, and states, though, traditionally have been the ones that have passed laws concerning wildlife and hunting seasons and all that, and they still do that. And that is a state law question. But the constitution of The United States has explicitly expressly granted authority to the general government in Washington DC through the executive department ratified by the US Senate to make treaties with other countries. And once they made a treaty about the specific, species of duck or goose or whatever it was, maybe it was geese. Oh, it's both. It was both. It was okay. But once that happens, they take control of that subject if they want to. So that means that the state government and the state law on that subject, once the federal government has occupied that field, their our law and our tradition of of, what we call, the division of power between the state and federal governments, the state government is required to to retreat from the field and allow the feds to have occupation.
[00:41:59] Unknown:
Okay. That's the point.
[00:42:01] Unknown:
Yeah. Admiralty law, same way. Navigable waters. That's you mentioned the corps of engineers. The corps of engineers are US army. Well, the general government through the US army has occupied the field because the constitution gave them authority to do that. That means that the states have no authority with the, on the subject of navigatable waters within and without The United States if the federal government has occupied that field. Go ahead, Robert. I was just gonna say I I lived in Alexandria,
[00:42:32] Unknown:
Louisiana. This is where my father they're England Air Force Base. Uh-huh. Used to be there. Probably still is. They call it Senla, Central Louisiana. Yeah. And you drive down to Baton Rouge, and you go over a bunch of causeways and stuff. Oh, yeah. And at times when they were when the Mississippi River was close to overflowing, they opened the floodgates and flood all those areas. Yeah. Okay. And so sometimes it'd be dry and sometimes it'd be with full full water. You know? So do here's just a question that's come to my mind. I've never thought about it back then. Are those navigable waters too?
[00:43:10] Unknown:
Yes. They if you could if you could put a rowboat on them Yep. They're navigable
[00:43:15] Unknown:
waters. Yeah. A p row. No. P row. I got a correction.
[00:43:18] Unknown:
Oh, wait. Wait. Wait, Roger. Yeah. I gotta I gotta I gotta go through this and get to it. Goodbye, Joe. You gotta go. P o m a o. Yep. Me gotta go row me, p ro down the pipe. Oh, there it is. You don't row them. You poll them. Oh, you got poll the p ro. That's
[00:43:36] Unknown:
Cajun French for a a rowboat. Is that it or what? Well, it's just a little shallow boat. You know? They they because they don't draft a lot of water, and they gotta go in those shallow places. So they don't, they keep the the bottom real low on the silhouette of the boat. But it's I guess you could call it a rowboat with probably with lower sides. Flat flat bottomed, though. Yeah. Flat bottomed boat. Yeah. That's good to know. Somebody's gonna say Somebody's gonna talk about P Rose here. Yep. We got some we got our Louisiana boys online here.
[00:44:09] Unknown:
Hey, Roger. It's Larry. I got a question for Brent.
[00:44:13] Unknown:
Does it have to do with p rose and Probably not. Well, no. Sure what Larry's got. It has to do with the the US constitution.
[00:44:21] Unknown:
Yeah. He's he's back from vacation. So he's full of he he he's full of curiosity. Go ahead, Lurt.
[00:44:31] Unknown:
Yeah. So the it it there's this thing, this teaching going around the patriot community, and it's been going around for years that the, US Constitution is not our constitution, that our constitution is the 1787, the 1789 constitution, and one of the one of the reasons they say that is because that constitution back in the seventeen hundreds said that it's the constitution for The United States Of America, and then they changed it later on, I think, in the eighteen hundreds, and they said this is the constitution of The United States.
Like, there was on all of that I think all of that information.
[00:45:12] Unknown:
I my suspicion is that was changed right after the civil war, but I'd like to hear Brent weigh in on this. Well, if somebody Yeah. So it's the prison constitution,
[00:45:20] Unknown:
our constitution still.
[00:45:23] Unknown:
Well, if somebody could show me some credible evidence on that point, I'd probably entertain it. But when you hear things like that, and there's a lot of it out there as you know, I just don't see any credible evidence to most of it. And and it comes down to, for example, is there cred oh, here's one of them. Is there credible evidence that the income tax amendment to the constitution was never properly ratified? And the answer is yes. Overwhelmingly. Yeah. That's easy. That one's easy. Overwhelming. And there were two men, Roger and I knew couple of the two men. Roger knew I knew one of them. Roger knew the maybe both of them. I don't know. But it was I've met I've met both of them, Red Beckman and Bill Benson. Okay. You met Bill Benson. I've never met him, but Red, I knew. They took time to go to every state, get in the archives, pull the paperwork out, and it's abundantly apparent. Yeah. So they've compiled it all in a book. You can still get the book probably. It's a big book.
Just proving conclusively that it was not properly ratified. In other words, due process wasn't followed. Is that true? Yes. That's true. Yes. It is. Has been it was proven in court, by the way, Larry. Yeah. It's proven in court, but the courts in our common law country are independent, and they've decided not to uphold that point of view. Well, we So here we are. Here we are. The story. They Bill Benson worked for the Illinois Department of Revenue, had a career.
[00:46:49] Unknown:
Right. Saw the saw the foolishness from the inside. When he got out, he hooked up with Red Beckman, one of the patriarchs of our movement folks, Red Beckman. Many of you don't even know who he was. Founded FEDIA also. And, they had a benefactor, and the benefactor paid for the whole exercise. They went to every state. There was a state in the union in 1916, I believe, when it was supposedly ratified. They went down in the archives. They got certified and notarized copies from every state. And Bill Benson wrote a book called the two, volume one and two, the law that never was. And as that gone out into the patriot community, somebody took it to court, and the lower court ruled in their favor.
Well, obviously, it was immediately appealed, and the appellate court overturned the lower decision. And then the appellate court goes, this is an illegal question. It's a political question. And so now we got the hot potato going back. No. It's not a political question. It's a legal question. No. It's a political. So that's been going on ever since.
[00:47:58] Unknown:
Yep. That's kinda what it is. Yeah. And that's our common law tradition. Who had which branch of government see, here's the point. Again, we make it, and it it serves us well. I'm not upset by any of this. Which branch of government has the final word or three branches of government? And then the general government, the national government, some people might say, who has the final word on what the law is? And people say, oh, the Supreme Court. Well, no. That's not true. Neither does the president, neither does the legislative branch, the Congress of the United States. The fact is in our common law tradition of law and government, religion law and government, I might add, none of those three branches has the final word on on what the law is.
They're, they're the Supreme Court delivers its opinion, but if the other two branches don't wanna follow that opinion, they don't.
[00:48:47] Unknown:
That's where it works in a in a law country. And we're talking about the sixteenth amendment. Well, guess what else? The seventeenth amendment, which was Oh, they're all. Yeah. Certified that later that year that severed states' rights into congress with senator appointment. That is null and void too. That was not properly ratified. The sixteenth amendment was not properly ratified. And the son of a bitch secretary of state that got up there and lied in front of the whole world, his name was Philander Knox.
Well, now great first name, a Philander.
[00:49:22] Unknown:
But, Roger, now I don't wanna join you calling his mother a son of a bitch, and I'll tell you why. I I he probably was rotten as a day as long, but I He sold the country down the damn river. I don't wanna include his mother because I don't know, but I understand your settlements. Send them. I'm sorry to missus Knox if I cast any aspersions. Oh, man. Don't be, yeah, don't be, running down anybody's mother. We gotta be careful here, but I know you didn't think of it that way. But sometimes I do. But back to I'll I mean, I'd insult a man or even I'd do a lot of things to a man who was a scoundrel if I could get away with it, but I don't wanna run down his mother if I don't have to. But here's the I don't think I have to. But here's the the the overarching principle in all of this.
We as Americans in our common law country, if we're gonna have a common law country, we must be absolutely comfortable and happy with the uncertainty of the government never come into a solid conclusion the way we want them to or maybe not enough. There is no centralized power in our common law country. That's the whole point. The rest of the world doesn't understand how we can have any order at all, but we do. Why? Because we distribute the power and the authority and the decision making to such a degree we don't allow absolute authority in government anywhere. I hope you see that. And that comes down to the King James controversy as well. As an example, to to illustrate this, the King Jamers, Roger, here's what they want.
They they are desperate to have absolute certainty so much so that they will just be stupid about it and say the King James Bible is final. God's God intended it that way, and every word in there, it is is, final final even beyond the Greek of the old, manuscripts of the New Testament and the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament. And even though the translators
[00:51:24] Unknown:
wrote a forward that said they're over I forget how many words intentionally mistranslated.
[00:51:30] Unknown:
But translators said that, and those people still believe that. But see, here's the deal, Rod that's right, Roger. But here's the deal to talk more about the overarching first principle. And we should approach all of these things we're discussing by these by a few overarching first principles. And the overarching first principle is God has given to us evidence. He has not made the decision for us, but he has given us sufficient evidence, a matter of fact, overwhelmingly sufficient evidence of that is admissible of what the truth is, and we must decide. But there is always with evidence, always with evidence, always a little bit of uncertainty someplace.
In the manuscripts, in the in our courts, the experts in government disagree. The nine justices on the Supreme Court, they even disagree. They're supposed to know. If they can't agree, well, then why is it I can't agree? As a matter of fact, our common law tradition says where the experts can't agree, I'm free for sure to make a decision. And frankly, friends, experts never agree. The higher you get with the experts and the bigger the questions that are more important, the less they agree. Brent, can I can I throw something right in here? They can't even agree on what income is. That's right, Roger. So what is that? That leaves it up to the individual American to make his choice. And even in our common law tradition and even in our military services, every private buck soldier, every seaman deuce, every admiral, every general takes the same oath to obey lawful orders, not to obey orders like, the Nazi Germany you swore to absolute loyalty to the death and obey the orders of a of a paper hanger from Bavaria.
You know, some of the men that Oh, I see. Yeah. A man. He was a corporal in the army. You swear absolute. Well, that's that's stupidity at its best. There is no man. I don't care how, worthy you might think he is, but to whom we are to give that kind of loyalty, including our president of The United States, Donald j Trump. The thing that will destroy a country, ultimately, is hero worship. Yep. Hero worship. Yeah. We we respect the president of The United States. We've got one that looks to me like he's right headed on a lot of things. Of course, I can always find fault, and I know you are too. But dadgum it
[00:54:10] Unknown:
He's under he's under siege right now.
[00:54:13] Unknown:
Well, the point is, yes. He is under there's no room for hero worship in among mortals.
[00:54:21] Unknown:
Unfortunately, Trump's opinion rating is one point above the lowest it's ever been just in the last ten ten days, two weeks, unfortunately. Somebody was trying to say there hey, Roger there a minute ago. Who was that?
[00:54:33] Unknown:
Yeah, Roger. Thank you. That's Samuel. My understanding is when the courts say something is political, that's because there's an individual choice. And, of course, you volunteer to pay your taxes. Right?
[00:54:52] Unknown:
Yeah.
[00:54:54] Unknown:
Yeah. They got it loaded where they choice. On the back end. Fourteenth amendment.
[00:54:58] Unknown:
Right. They got it loaded on the back end where they can come do all this stuff you don't understand the process you're in, but go ahead.
[00:55:06] Unknown:
That was it. I'm done. Okay. Well, you volunteered It's a choice.
[00:55:11] Unknown:
You volunteered to pay your taxes like you volunteered to stop at a stop sign. Yeah. You volunteered to pay your taxes like you volunteered to keep within the speed limit. Just keep those analogies in mind, but if you don't volunteer, force may be used against you. That's the reality, isn't
[00:55:29] Unknown:
it? Yes.
[00:55:30] Unknown:
I mean, you're not gonna get away from that. Well, if you have a choice, Brent, do you have a choice to be a fourteenth amendment citizen or not?
[00:55:36] Unknown:
No. You don't. No. You don't. No. You are not a fourteenth amendment citizen. You have a choice of whether or not you wanna proclaim it, and that's what some of you have done. Well But but but no. You are what god says you are. You are what the constitution of The United States says you are, and you are not what the fourteenth amendment says you are. And that's pretty easy.
[00:56:01] Unknown:
Man. But remember, when you what god says I am.
[00:56:05] Unknown:
Well, yeah. Well, if the common law tradition is consonant with the Bible, you're what God says you are. Yes. But it's important that you it is important to know what God says you are, and the Bible spends a whole lot time more explaining who you are than it does telling you what to do. A lot. Because you'll never have the gumption to do what God tells you to do unless you have full understanding of who you are.
[00:56:30] Unknown:
That's one of the That Sun Tzu stuff.
[00:56:32] Unknown:
The the Bible Romans is the unpacking, the ultimate unpacking of the gospel of God. It says so right in the beginning. He calls it the great gospel of God. Everything that God will allow you to know, it's in there. And it most all of the book, three quarters of the book is spent trying to explain to the reader and the hearer who he is. No commandments given. Great great detail. Answers every question that the mind of man can conceive. The ultimate questions of human existence. Everything from predestination and election to, the mysteries of who God is and where he is. It's all there and why he does what he does.
And if we ever get comfortable with what God wants us to know and major on that and know it well, occupy that field as far as he allows us to do so. And then the uncertainty in our minds, the things that are higher that only God, only God is privy to, to leave that alone and quit trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pen as many theologians in the middle ages majored on trying to figure silly stuff like that out. Life is practical. It doesn't last long. We got things to do. We need to quit screwing around. I'm not criticizing you, Larry. But I'm just saying in general, all of us need to quit screwing around with questions that don't matter. What matters is a King James Bible. And then devote yourself to that is the same thing as devoting yourself to the to the, the Latin Vulgate and saying that's fine. Right. Well, that's Rome trying to give to people what they crave, finality. I wanna know. Somebody tell me. Well, God says no. You gotta figure that one out on the basis of the evidence I give you personally. That's what you gotta do. Oh, nobody wants that responsibility.
We want some expert to tell us. Get get a priest to tell me. Get the pope to tell me. Get my preacher to tell me. The King James preacher. Get the governor to tell me, the Supreme Court. No. No. No. You are to look at the evidence as a member as it were of the jury. Right. You gotta come to your own conclusion, and it's gonna be yours. And God made it that way, and you better get at it and decide to grow up and smell the coffee, put on your big boy britches, and make the ultimate decisions of life. But that's a lifelong process. Just get at it. That's my that's my admonition to myself and everyone listening, and I'm trying to do that. God help me. I hope I continue.
It's a matter of taking responsibility for your own decisions, and the government, our government doesn't even allow itself. Our law doesn't allow itself to do that. There is no finality in a common law country, except the finality that you choose to adhere to. And it doesn't people say, well, the Supreme Court said this. Well, that doesn't mean it's right, does it, when you've got people on the head, especially up there that don't even know the difference between a man and a woman. You don't even know a woman, don't even know what a woman is. No. They're gonna tell me, about the ultimate questions of human existence. No. I'm not trusting them. Are you trusting them? Roger, back to you. Well, I'm trying to get a little put in here and promote something. We talked quite a bit last week about pastor Pete Peters.
[00:59:56] Unknown:
Uh-huh.
[00:59:57] Unknown:
He one of the things I remember was a series that he did at least four, maybe six hours called the King James only version. Uh-huh. Now you can go to his website if this is up your alley. You can go to his website, scriptures for America, and you can order those, that tape series. I don't know what they charge or anything else. I just remember it. And right before he started that series, there was a biographer on there who had done several different biographies, but the one they were talking about particularly to lead into this series was he did one on King James.
And that's where I found out all these these little tidbits I know about. You know, the Scotsman called him Shami Jamie because he was a homosexual. And when his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, was, had her head cut off right there in public, I don't know if I don't think they drew and quartered her, but they cut her head off. Right, Brent?
[01:00:57] Unknown:
Yo. Yeah. They sure did. Yeah. They sure did. They cut her head off. Well, after they decapitated
[01:01:04] Unknown:
her, he was a young man, He went into a room for three days. He didn't come out. He didn't eat. He didn't speak with anybody. He didn't drink anything. And when he came out after three days, he never spoke about the incident the rest of his life. Oh, when did that? I wish I could remember the guy's name that had all this information. But if you ask the folks, if you wanna go after this and you ask the folks at Scriptures for America, I'll just bet you they know.
[01:01:33] Unknown:
So comment, Brent. Oh, yeah. You can find that sir I I found that series, just on the Internet, Rogers, out there somewhere. You don't Oh, is it? Okay. Yes. But, you know, when, when the axeman took off her head, she had a wig on. Nobody knew it. Correct. And the custom was in those days, if the when the axeman cuts your head off, the henchman, they called him, and he was supposed to reach down, grab the head by the hair, hold it up in front of the crowd, and say, thus, something, is the fate of traitors or god save the king or something like that. Well, he reached down to pick up her head, grabbed her by the hair, and gave it a jerk to hold it up, and all that came was the hair because it was a it was a rug. You know? It was a rug she'd put on her head or for some reason. And, the head then went rolling across the platform.
Now this is the testimony I read for what it's worth. It was a gruesome sight is what I'm saying. But king whether king let's say, King James was a homosexual, King James was under whatever. That's bad. Right. But that's not the driving point with me. The driving point with me is that, it's just silly to say that some translation of the Bible is final when you've got their the Bible in the original tongues. And that's what Rome does. The original tongues are not final to them. The the, the the, Latin Vulgate is final. And they it's been final ever since Jerome translated it about April, and they wanted a final version. So everybody was on the same page.
Well, that that's just silly. What becomes but it's not that the Vulgate is is useless. It's not that the King James Bible is useless. As I often say, it is without question. Hands down, people agree to study it even, and you don't have to study this to know it's the most beautiful piece of English literature ever produced, including Shakespeare as good as Shakespeare is. But by the way, written, Shakespeare lived about the same time. That was the zenith. When the King James Bible was translated, that was the absolute pinnacle and zenith of the of the the, the beauty of the Anglo Saxon tongue. And I'm I'm not talking, efficiency.
I'm talking beauty,
[01:03:51] Unknown:
and that's what it was. It's beautiful. Yeah. And I would reiterate, he pastor Peters covers it in that series. The translators, and there's a number of them, I guess. He he supervised that translation every
[01:04:05] Unknown:
day. Oh, he fashioned himself. King James fashioned himself a scholar of equal bill ability and understanding with the translators. There were 54 of them. Ultimately, 54 translators of the King James Bible. And in order to be on the translation team, each translator had to swear that he upheld the doctrine of divine right of kings. The divine right of kings, which meant that the king answers to no one on earth, period. Right. He is God on earth. And that those 54 translators
[01:04:40] Unknown:
put a preface in the Bible. I just moved. Hold on, Bruce. They put a preface in the Bible that over if I remember right, they said there were over 500 words in there that were mistranslated.
[01:04:52] Unknown:
Well, they didn't say mistranslated, but you're close. But let me see if I can soften that a little. They said there's a lot we don't know. They said that in the preface that's of the sixteen eleven version. There's a lot we don't know, and we're satisfied that there'll be a lot of improvement improvements be made. You know, they were humble, but they didn't say they did made mistakes on purpose. But they, said there were things that they did did do according to the orders of King James that as I like to point out, they were to always prefer prefer elegance over accuracy.
Mhmm. Now that see, you get to understand too the times, there are different phases of of what in the English speaking world in the English speaking world, Blaine, they're invented Bible translation. When Wycliffe had translated the Bible for the first time into a native tongue out of the Latin Vulgate, he didn't have the any manuscripts of the original tongues. When he did that, he it'd never been tried before, and Wycliffe was without question unassailable in his knowledge. Nobody could really compete with him in all of Europe. But when he did that, he didn't know how to do it. So he just took the Latin words word for word in order of Latin and put an English word in there. That's what he did. So when people read it, a lot of people said, well, this is nothing but a Latin Latin Bible with with English words. You know?
And it was. And then that was that was the way it started. And then it was wasn't a 100 years, but, let's see, in the 15 hundreds, you know, well, over a 100 about a 150 or more. Then Tyndale got ahold of the transcripts or the manuscripts of their in the original tones, not many. Not many, and I've been met very few as a matter of fact. Just a handful. And, he really did a bang up job. 80% of the King James Bible is not the translators. In other words, the King James Bible is not even a translation, a raw translation from the original tongues. What it is is a reworking of Tyndale's translation.
Mhmm. Tyndale's translation, 80% at least, if not more, just the phrases of William Tyndale, and it was tested. The King James men tested it against the Latin Vulgate and the six, half a dozen, just half a dozen, manuscripts they had of the New Testament. They had stuff of the Old Testament that was older, but it was more extensive. But they only had half a dozen manuscripts, and none of them of those manuscripts were ancient. They were pretty pretty recent, in in, in the big scheme of things. Well, now we don't have six a half a dozen, six. We have closer to 6,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, and some of them are very close to the first century. We have one one papyri fragment, by all best estimates is around 100 AD, and it's of the book of of, John, the gospel of John, which would and John wrote very late in the first century.
He lived very long too, by the way, almost a 100 or right there right thereabouts. So that's going back to the very beginning. As one fellow said, the apostolic ink was hardly dry. I've often said that particular, piece of fragment going back about a 100 AD. Some say more, some say less. But that particular fragment, who knows? It could be the original fragment. Unlikely. I know. But it could be. I'm just go saying it goes way back there and, the the all of the manuscripts we have are evidence and good evidence. And under our common law rules of evidence, they are, we are to seek the best evidence.
The Bible seems to, be in in, sync with the common law rule of evidence called the best evidence rule, that we apply to ancient documents to determine which ones we should be using as evidence. Well, that's what we do with the manuscripts. First of all, we say, well, do we have manuscripts of the original tongues, Koine Greek, the New Testament, Hebrew, and then to a to a lesser degree, we find some some of the new Old Testaments written in Aramaic, some pericopes, not books, but just sections. Usually, the decrees of the Babylonian kings are written in the original tongue in which those those decrees were written, and there's just a few of them, book of Daniel, the book of Esther, book of Nehemiah, where where they're talking about the Babylonian emperor.
But we have Hebrew, Aramaic, and and Greek, the New Testament. That's the original times, though those under the best evidence rules ought to take precedence. We don't want somebody's version to take precedence because when you translate from your original tongues, and there are translations from the original tongues that are available to us in English when you do that, you you can't get every every concept in there. You can get it you can get a lot, but there's always something that is lost or gained in a translation. Always.
Without exception, my friends, there is no such thing of just taking a Greek or Hebrew word and saying, okay. Here's the English word word that exactly fits. That that never happens ever. Mhmm. But there are do that in Spanish. Can't do that in Spanish to English either. Well, you know that just trying to learn languages as anybody would. Yeah. Well but there are words that we can put in there that clearly get the concept of the word across, and give it a I like to say in in English, the good translations give us those of us to remember black and white television, give us a clear, crisp, black and white picture of everything the author is saying.
And if you wanna add color to that picture, there are some translations that will give you that, but they won't read quite as smoothly. I was gonna say Bible translated translation in the beginning started with Wycliffe, just wooden. Word for word, all out of order because Latin is not always in their order of English. And then the idea by the time we get to the King James, the idea is elegance because that was the age of elegant elegance. That's what was popular. Shakespeare did what was popular. He wrote in with those kinds of phrases. By the way, Shakespeare never quoted the King James Bible, and he I think I write out about a 300 times. About 300 times Shakespeare includes Bible quotes in his writings.
But he doesn't quote the King James. He quotes the Geneva Bible. Ah. And the Geneva Bible is not quite as elegant and beautiful, but it's more accurate. That was it. More of the idea with the the, Geneva Bible was accuracy, but still beauty was important. And when you read it and every Bible translation after the King James until 1881, every translation in English. So that was 1611 to 1881. That's a lot of centuries. But during that time during that time, every English translation was a reworking of the King James. It was not a translation from the original tongues. Yeah. The 1881 translation is the official government funded and authorized translation of the Anglican church, just like the King James translation, is a government project of King James, government funded and government promoted. What does that tell you? Well, it tells you that everything about it was to promote government power. That Absolutely. Don't go be blind to this, friend. Uh-huh. You know, it's
[01:12:48] Unknown:
go ahead, Roger. I've had Geneva Bible, I think, was the first one with footnotes too, wouldn't it? It was the first Bible
[01:12:55] Unknown:
translation with footnotes, the first Bible translation, the, the verses. That's where the verses we have in all of our Bibles all over the world now came from that. The verses that were that were divided up in there, the chapter divisions of our English Bibles were provided by the drafter of Magna Carta, by the way, way back in Langton. At around yeah. Around, the December. Langton. But it's all very much a Christian endeavor and a common law endeavor. You cannot separate those two, by the way, in our world. It's not possible. The common law or common law tradition in the Bible. Well, so by the time you get past 1881, then the culture of Bible translation, and there were a plethora of English translations, it was it went from woodenness and which was shooting for accuracy, then elegance with the King James and all that time up through 1881, and then came the age of accuracy Accuracy.
And that pinnacle in 1971 with the new American standard Bible. Mhmm. That that particular translation, by the way, on all have all the popular translations, and I'm not gonna include my translation because it's not popular. But of all the well known translations, that is the most accurate. And I'm not gonna say it's more accurate than mine. I I believe mine is more accurate. But mine is neither eloquent eloquent or eloquence means readability, by the way. See, that's the beauty of the King James Bible. It's beautiful and it reads well and it's best. The phrases are balanced and eloquent. But by the time we get to the well, the American standard of nineteen o one where the that was done by the the tran American translators who were on the 1881 edition.
And when they got done, there were American and British translators. When they got done with that, the American translators agreed to sign, an agreement that they would not translate the Bible into American English for seven or fourteen years. I forget what well, let's see. '18 no longer than that. '18 they were working on it all that time, but they didn't they didn't make publish it until nineteen o one according to their contractual agreement. So they did that. Mhmm. And that was accuracy. And that accuracy just got better and better and better until the new American standard. Now the old American standard of nineteen o one was not completely from the original manuscripts. It was really also reworking of that of the King James version.
The new American standard, the word new was intended to signal that this is not from any other translation. This is just raw straight from the original tongues. And it is. And it is accurate and readable, but it's not eloquent. Okay. Then we we leave that, then we that was the pinnacle. Then after that, people got to talking about readability. And they said the importance here is to get the point across. We don't care how accurate it is just so we get the general idea across and people enjoy reading it. Mhmm. So we had the paraphrase that came out called, which isn't a translation at all, called the, the living bible came out in the nineteen sixties at the promotion of Billy Graham.
He was in a in a sick bed back in the early sixties, and somebody gave him a copy of the book of the of the living the living Bible, the book of the New Testament. And he said, we gotta hand this out of all of our crusades. And all of a sudden, the guy who did that, he it's not a translation. He was just paraphrasing it from the King James Bible for his he had 10 children, and he they they didn't understand the phraseology of the King James, so he paraphrased it and made it easy. And that became a Bible. Now the age of readability comes, then that trumps accuracy.
Remember, King James gave orders to his 54 translators. When it comes to a decision between accuracy and elegance, you must choose elegance because he said, we have to make it the phrase is memorable in the minds of men to overcome the influence of the Geneva Bible, which was accurate as well was accurate. But we get the new American standard. By the way, the pilgrims wouldn't carry the King James to America. They hated it because it represented the divine right of kings contrary to the common law tradition, So they wouldn't carry it, and they didn't. They hated that Bible.
Well, so with government promotion of government money, it became popular. That's how that happened and overcame the Geneva Bible. Who's ever even heard of the Geneva Bible? A monopoly. See, that's a monopoly. Monopolies can't exist without government power and money, government enforcement, and that's what the King James Bible is. It was a monopoly Bible in the English speaking world made popular by government money and power. And not to say that God hasn't used it and not to say that it isn't fun to read and I grew up on it. I get all that. But it's important to understand when you look at a translation of of the Bible, it has a purpose. Every translation has a specific purpose. If you know what that purpose is, then when you read it, you can deal with it a little better. That's all I'm saying. Yeah. New American Standard came out, then the new one more point, then the new international version was all about readability.
Accuracy didn't matter. It is not a translation, and that's the first English bible translate first bible in English that has trumped the sales of the King James Bible, the first one. Back to you, Roger.
[01:18:33] Unknown:
Bruce, was trying to get in about ten or fifteen minutes ago. Bruce, what do you got?
[01:18:41] Unknown:
Well, Brent, you hit the nail on the head. I'll tell you. All my life, the word predestination has always been in my mind. The things I do as I grow up and do things, I find that predestination guided me into that, and I accepted it. And it's God's will. And can you go further with predestination, Papa? It is bringing everybody together as we are today.
[01:19:10] Unknown:
I think I understood what your question was a little bit garbled, but did you ask me to make a comment on it?
[01:19:18] Unknown:
Yeah. It's how it brings us together. We we were predented. We we are anyway, predestination to be here. All of us are. God wanted us to be here to get this information with you and Roger and everybody else is giving working their predestination. They don't know it maybe, but I realize it. It's guided me all the way my whole life.
[01:19:47] Unknown:
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Well, anybody whose brain works will wrestle with that question at some point. And the reason men all men, I say, like, they wrestle with it. They see what the Bible says. The Bible clearly teaches it clearly. It's not even like it's ambiguous, and it said so many times in so many ways that it's overwhelming. And don't forget the people that founded America, that was their central doctrine, predestination, the Puritans. That was all that is still a central doctrine of the Presbyterians that came to America. That's the central doctrine of the Dutch reformed groups that came to America. Now the call them Christian reformed and other things. That's their central doctrine. The people, James Madison. James Madison educated with the ambition of being a clergyman. That was the central doctrine of the place where he went to school, Princeton College. It it remained the central doctrine there until the nineteen twenties. Predestination is the central doctrine to the Bible. Without it, everything in the Bible becomes real utterly meaningless.
If God is not the God that predestines all that happens into total sovereignty, then he's not worthy of our worship. That's what they said. I'll just quote them. You wanna go look? You can look at that. I can see. I'm not stupid. I just read the Bible. I study it. I I can just give you my personal testimony. There is no question. The Bible teaches it and it shouts it on every page, this absolute and utter sovereignty of God. But then people wrestle with it and they say this, well, wait a minute. I I it makes sense, but it's not logical. And then they try to go through it logically and try to understand. Uh-oh.
And the Bible says and God says, once I speak, that's the end of it. The truth of the matter, the fact of the matter is our common law tradition, not logic. There's a lot of things I know in life to be absolutely fact that I cannot explain. And there's a lot of things that you know that you can't explain either, but they are a fact. I used I like to use the example of gravity. It's a fact. Mhmm. I've I've read a lot about gravity. I had I've read the theories about gravity. There isn't anybody I've ever read that knows how it happens. They don't have any idea. No. And there isn't, but they know it's true, and we deal with life on the basis of law. It is just true. That's the way it is. It's not changing. Yeah. Can God suspend the laws of gravity? Absolutely. And he did so when he made the ax head float in the old testament, float on water, an iron axe head. You can go read about it in the prophets. And that's just one little example where he suspended the law of gravity.
But there are a lot of things we know. Our common law tradition is a tradition of fact. It's not a tradition of logic. The law of the city tradition, scholasticism is another name for it. Humanism is another name for it. It it it says that we can we can find truth with pure logic, and that's not true. That's so that's a silly, utterly silly statement. Anybody that's really considered it, the logic will not get you to the truth by itself. That's not possible. Logics a tool like dynamite, like nuclear power, like fire, very dangerous by the way, very dangerous tool and easy to misuse, but it is a tool that can be used, right? It's a creation of God, but fact is the foundation of everything. Well, what, how do we know what fact is?
Evidence. Evidence. Talking a while ago about God creates always he gives us the evidence. We got four gospels. Example, case in point. Four gospel records, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They're all biography about the same man, Jesus Christ. They are all constitute a record of evidence and record of evidence about him. And the question before the jury, if you read those is, who is Jesus Christ and what did he do? Well, those four gospel records record three of them we call synoptic because they pretty much follow the same pattern of facts about what Jesus Christ did, but none of them tell this give the same evidence about this about the fact. They give different evidence about the fact.
And we, as members of the jury, as it were, are to look at those three testimonies or four and with John before testimonies. He was the cleanup testimony, a trial lawyer would say. He's the final testimony. But you look at all the testimonies, one, two, three, four, and you say, okay. This man said this, this man said this, that, this and that. But this man said that there were two angels at the grave of Jesus Christ, and the other gospel said there was one or he saw one. Well, how what do you do with that? Well, just it's evidence. It's testimony. Could it be that one witness just wanted to reference one? Could it be that one one of the witnesses just saw one and the other one saw two? Did it could it be that one of witnesses want to reference just one because he was making a particular point about that one? Well, that's the way it is in court.
You take the witnesses, the sworn testimonies, you put them together, and you say, okay. What's the truth here? Now I've never seen anything in the gospel records that is contradictory. That's I'm not saying that. I'm just saying these are four testimonies. And throughout the history of Christianity, we've called, for example, those four books, the four testimonies of the evangelists. Four evangelists, plural. And that's what they are. And all of the Bible, by the way, is a written record of God's testimony. He says so. And we can see it just looking at it. Isaiah said all the Bible is is either is either testimony, that means affidavit, written records, evidence, or it is law. And even the parts that are law are evidence of what the law is, the record that God has provided of what he said. So in all of this, it's all evidence.
And God wants us to and God doesn't want to deal want us to deal with life on anything but sufficient evidence. And that's what the Bible is. That's the ultimate evidence. By the way, words are the ultimate evidence always even in the courtroom, and they are here with the Bible as well. There was a professor from Harvard. Yeah. Because somebody's gonna say something. Go ahead.
[01:26:16] Unknown:
Yeah, Brent. This is Bob. I had, I don't gosh. Two, three years ago, you brought forward the fact. And if I'm touching on something that you've already mentioned in this broadcast, I apologize. I've been in and out a little bit, but Uh-huh. It was kind of a revelation to me when you mentioned the fact that it was so bloody obvious when you said it that the word evidence contains v I d as in video, something seen. And I'm like, well, duh. No. That kinda opened my eyes to the concept of evidence. Yeah. And, just thought that was a nice little aside. Something I was curious about. I grew up in the Presbyterian church, and I was gifted a Bible by the church with seven or 10 of my classmates as a budding first grade reader, and it was the revised standard version.
Uh-huh. And that's what I grew up reading. Of course, I was very familiar with the the King James because it was very, very common and Uh-huh. Obviously, much read, but they were they, the the church I attended, gave out the revised standard version. I don't know. Did you cover that here just in the last little history of different come, different translations? Or I did. A little Versions of the Bible? I did a little, but I I I it bears Shane a little more. I must have missed that. I had another call I was briefly on, and I may have missed that. Could you reiterate that and maybe expand on it? It seemed to be quite common in my youth, and I it's kinda seemed to have fallen away. I don't know how accurate it was or what it was derived from. I'm just curious what you're Well, the revised stand thanks. No. It's worth talking about. No question. The revised standard version
[01:27:58] Unknown:
was an in American update of the American standard version of nineteen o one. The American Standard Version was an American, modification of the old revised version of 1881, which was funded and intended to supplant the King James Bible by the official proclamation of the of the king of at that time, Queen of England Queen Vic. And the they the churchmen in England had convinced her, it's about time we revised, gave gave a new official translation because the King James, obviously, uses words that we don't use anymore. And on and on they went, she she authorized it, and so they did it. Then the the on that team, they wanted to make it, prevalent throughout the English speaking world, so a lot of men on that team were Americans.
But they signed an agreement saying, we're not gonna do an American publish American translation, revising this for x number of years to give time for this revised translation, the new official Bible of the Anglican church, give it time to get some traction. So they did that. Then in nineteen o one, they, published what they believed was the American revision of the King James Bible called the American, American, Standard Version of nineteen o one. Well, then in 1952, the revised standard version of 1952 came out. This is a fascinating story behind all these. Now here's what happened with the '52 version. McCarthyism was raging at that time, as you know. And communist the communist scare was over the top all through the fifties and sixties, but it really got going back then. And, it got so bad, the revised standard translation did this, and this is what really upset a lot of people.
There's a verse in in Isaiah that says that it was a prophecy hundreds of years before it happened that a virgin shall conceive. A virgin shall conceive, Isaiah said. Well, of course, that really happened. We have some evidence and we've actually done the evidence and the evidence says of the manuscripts overwhelmed. But coming back,
[01:30:23] Unknown:
there's noise out there for somebody. Yeah. Bob, can you hit your mute? There you go. Thank you. Okay. I don't I don't think it's me in this case. It would come across me. It it was. Yeah. I just thought it was you. So sorry. Oh, Bob knows. Bob's in the field running machinery, so we think, well, maybe that's Bob. You know? So but, anyway Well, a lot of times, I gotta remember to turn my businessman radio down because my crew starts talking right in the middle of something. I don't even think about it. Okay. It's quite distracting.
[01:30:51] Unknown:
Well, we we enjoy, of course, having the opportunity to talk to people personally this way, but it comes with these glitches. But we're happy about it as long as people try to conform best they can. But the nineteen fifty two version came out, and it the scare was so strong about things like that during the communist, purge here in America. And the revised, the revised standard version of 1952 translated young virgin instead of or, young maiden or maiden instead of instead of virgin. Now the word here's the people just rejected that revised standard version out of hand over that over that rendition. That rendition wasn't wrong, friends. But the funny thing about it was the does the word mean virgin, or does it mean young maiden? Well, stop and consider just a minute.
The word maiden means virgin. Virgin. Virgin is a Latin word made popular by the church of Rome, of course, because that the Latin Bible is their official Bible. But the word maiden is the English way to say virgin. So it really shouldn't have upset anybody, but it did. So much so that the armed forces commander in Germany, there were a lot of American soldiers there at that time, forbade the use of the English of the, revised standard version by the troops that were in Germany. My lord. That's how serious people got about this. But then their minds, the word alma, the Greek or the Hebrew word of Isaiah is alma.
And people say, well, it could be translated maiden. Well, of course, it could. That's the English way of saying virgin. We've forgotten that now. A young maiden. You've heard a maiden in distress. Well, that's a virgin. But the the, Latin word has supplanted the the English word. In my translation of the Bible, by the way, I don't use the word virgin virgin anywhere. I use the word maiden because I have a policy of trying to get rid of all these Latin words. And I want to I wanna revise Well, the most are better. A lot better.
[01:32:58] Unknown:
Go ahead. The most common thing that comes to my mind when you think of the word maiden is talking about a woman's maiden name, assuming, you know, that after you get married, you're probably not a maiden anymore. I mean, that's kind of assumed. Yeah. Yeah. And, also, it would be Anyway should be assumed.
[01:33:15] Unknown:
This isn't assumed anymore for good reason. It should be assumed. If you're not never been married, you're still a virgin. See that was the other assumption. Right. That's what that means now, but that was the deception. Well, that's the the the that's a good bible. It's a good translation. I've read it. I like it. I'm not against it. I'm just making the point, that it fell on hard times and never sold because of that one verse. I had a teacher in school. He was from Scotland, and he was one of my favorites. You've heard some of you have heard me talk about him a lot. His name was Donald MacDowell. And his parents were missionaries, and they wanted when they were young, to go to a place no white man had ever been. You know, they were young, ambitious, and they ended up going deep, deep, deep into Africa.
[01:34:04] Unknown:
And they rode bicycles. Oh, I thought you were gonna say the South Side Of Chicago. Yeah.
[01:34:11] Unknown:
Now that.
[01:34:12] Unknown:
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
[01:34:15] Unknown:
Well, you set him up, Brent. What's that?
[01:34:19] Unknown:
You sure set him up. Oh, yeah. That was good. Well, anyway, they got to this place. Well, they thought they got to a place where no white man had ever been, but they got there and they'd found some unknown, Brit, some white man who had Brit had been there, didn't tell anybody, went on his own, funded his own self, didn't make a big deal about it, but he lived with these folk for a decade or two, learned their tongue, and translated the Bible into English. He was not an educated man, so he just used the King James Bible and put it into English. Well, McDougal's mother and father wanted to translate give these people a Bible translation, and they finally did after a long, long, long time.
Well, the to that day, for all their work, that Bible translation has never been used. Because once people get a particular translation and get used to it, it is almost impossible to deviate from it, and they think that's the final word. That's just the way it works. And these people, these Africans deep in in Africa, if he didn't translate it just the way it was said in the one they got first, they weren't going to accept it. And that's what happens in all those situations. And that's what's happening with the King James. But remember remember, there have been many translations among many people throughout the world.
Martin Luther I'm not a Lutheran. I always say that when I say Luther's name because I don't want people to think I'm attached to the Lutheran church because the Lutheran Church, even though some of them think they're Bible believers, they have abandoned Martin Luther entirely. And they did that right after he died. And one of the things they abandoned was Luther one of Luther's foremost discoveries in the Bible, and that was predestination and the bondage of the will of the sinner. It's a fascinating subject again in church history. It's always been there, but people just can't stomach it. That's what they just can't accept that they're not in control. And you say, well, if God's in control and, predestination is true, then I don't have any choice.
Then he's taken away free will. That is not true. Not even a little bit. There's nothing contradictory about it. You just haven't thought it through. I ask people this. For example, Joe, am I who am I talking to? I forget. Bob. Oh, Bob is the one that yeah. Sorry, Bob. I have to picture the I have to picture Western Nebraska in my mind to keep you in mind. But I and bailing hay, which I know you do. Well, at any rate, a predestination, they say that's contradiction with free will. No. It isn't. No man no man can do anything he wants. That's not even possible to say you're free to do whatever you want. I used to wanna play basketball, wished I could play basketball like Larry Bird. Well, it wasn't really Larry. It was other people. Larry came after at the time I was in high school, but that wasn't gonna happen because I'm not six feet nine and a half inches tall and not gonna happen. Not like that. I didn't have no matter how much I wanted to do that, if it was my will, it wasn't going to happen.
I wanted a lot of other things in life that were impossible to happen. I, of course, I couldn't choose. I didn't choose where where I was born, who my parents were, who my brothers and sisters were, and who my friends were, where I went to school. I didn't choose any of that. And my parents didn't choose it either. They were kinda, captive of, God's sovereign as to what land they would be born in and where. They we couldn't choose our size, our shape, our hair color, our skin color. We didn't choose any of that. As the Bible says, we are not born from above by the will of any man. Wow. That's is that is that bordering on predestination? That's John chapter one verse 12. Yes. It is.
Not by the will of any man, but by the will but but but by the will of God the father. I've said this a lot. If I you've heard me say this, please bear with me. It's worth repeating. I'm not here in the flesh because I decided to be here. I'm here in the flesh because my dis my father decided he was gonna try to figure out how to seduce my mother and to go along with him on this project. That's why I'm here. And my mother, her will then combined with my father's will, and here I am. That's a good analogy, by the way. The Bible says that if you ever choose what is really good for, to say bluntly Jesus Christ, it's because God the father wiggled your willer.
He seduced you into it some as the as the reformer said, the Puritans, the will of God becomes irresistible. God makes it irresistible and you do choose the right thing, but it's not because it was in you to do that. No, you're dead. You're not even alive. How could you choose anything dead in your trespasses and sins? I'm I'm just repeating what the people that founded America said and what they believed. I read their writings. And they're just saying what the Bible says. You're dead in trespassing and sins. God does not save drowning people. He saves dead people. And, he he is the one that chooses by as your father. Fathers choose who will be born or when you will be born, how you will be born, by the spirit too.
Jesus Christ said, remember, he said this to his followers, you, you didn't choose me. In the final analysis, I chose you. We could even cut it this way. Let's say that you chose you choose to be a Christian. You choose Jesus Christ above all things. Now you think you did that. Well, still, if you really believe that you're the initiator of this, it's still dependent upon whether or not God will accept you. Well, but the Bible says he will. Well, yeah, but still that was his choice, not yours. No matter how you cut it, ultimately, your will is subject to your creator and you are a creature of your creator.
Now you say, well, do I have free will? Well, you have will. It's always been free to do certain things, but not anything you wanted to do. But it has been free. Yes. Certain things. But the difference between the man who is born of the spirit and the man who is not born of the spirit is this. The man who is not born of the spirit can choose an a whole lot of things within the scope of evil. A whole lot of things within the scope of evil. But the Bible says point blank, he cannot. It doesn't say he won't. It says he cannot choose what is ultimately righteous and good. What's that? Jesus the Christ. He can't do that. Martin Luther called it bondage of the will. His will is bound. That's the one thing he can't do. Even if he chooses to do something that's good on the human plane, he got a pound of flesh in it. He does it for the wrong reasons, and God won't accept that no matter how look good it looks.
Well, when some man is born from above by the will, not of the will of any man, including himself according to John's gospel, then all of a sudden he has a choice. At that point, he has a choice between between what is ultimate the ultimate good, Jesus Christ, and everything else, which is evil. And he will make the right choice. The Bible says God makes it irresistible to the one who was born from above. Why? Because he has given him a new heart, a new desire, a new mind, a new, a new basis of fact upon which to use logic. He has given him a new will. He wants to please his father. Just like you want to please your father in the flesh. Now you don't want to please other men. You're not a man pleaser. You're not you don't care what other people think. You want to please your father.
This is what God does for men and now you have freedom. That's why the Bible says, if the son make you free and don't think you're free before the new birth, as Jesus Christ said, you aren't. And I can see that every person that isn't is bound to themselves and their own sin, and they are destroying themselves. Sometimes slow, sometimes sometimes fast. But once you're born from above, you're a baby, you don't know anything, you don't even have self consciousness, then you begin to have self consciousness, then choices begin.
If you're a new creature, you have a new desire. And the Bible teaches that God does wiggle your willer, and he makes you willing. Let me quote the Bible, Old Testament. The Bible says that Yahuwah, God himself, the creator makes men willing in the day of his power. When he wants you to will what he wants you to will, he makes it irresistible and that's what you will that's what you will will. The Bible says that the heart that is the desire, the heart desire of the King. He's just another mortal. Just as an example, the heart of the King is in the hand of Yaho God himself.
And he turns it whithersoever he will. That's what God does. He's ultimately and finally sovereign in all things if he wants to be. It's all up to what he wants. I said to a fellow, I was trying to talk into taking a case the other day, a law case. And, I was trying to persuade him. He was saying, no. I don't think I don't want no. Finally, I said, look. It's all up to you. It's if you don't wanna take it, that I'm not gonna make you. And he said, you're damned right. And, you know, he kinda used a little bit of powerful cuss words there. Trying to emphasize it's up to me.
I'm the one that decides, not you, Brent. Well, was he right? Yes. He was right. I was trying to demonstrate to him that I understood that too. Well, God's in the up position. He's the one that says yes or no. And when you come before the maker of heaven and earth, the sovereign of all creation, he'll either look up at you and smile or he'll frown. That's his prerogative, not mine. I don't call his hand. I don't control him. He's not a genie. I say the right words and everything's okay and he'll do whatever I think he ought to do. No, no, no, no, no.
He says, and he describes particularly and tightly and depthly in Romans chapter eight exactly how it works. That's how that's how he does it. Well, that's my understanding of predestined and all I'm doing, friends, and my the best of my testimony and understanding is trying to just say, deliver to you what the Bible says about predestination and try to encapsulate it with the evidence given. If you don't believe that, it's not my job to change your mind. I don't have power to do that anyway. But it is my job to tell you what the book says, and it's not ambiguous. I don't care what anybody says. It's not as clear as crystal. Back to you, Roger.
[01:45:20] Unknown:
Thank you, Brent. Bob, I guess that got your question answered. Let's we don't have a whole bunch of time, but does anybody in the audience have anything, along with this conversation or others that you'd like to,
[01:45:34] Unknown:
ask for? To follow-up if you may. Yes, sir. Well, of course, you can. The new American standard then, I presume, just fits nicely on the end of that series.
[01:45:47] Unknown:
Yes. As a matter of fact, the new American standard is the pinnacle in the English speaking world and really of all the world of the policy of Bible translation seeking accuracy above all things. But it's gotta be somewhat readable, and it is. But Bible translators make fun of it, and they say, well I remember listening to, he's an Anglican, a well known one. He wrote the first Christian best selling book in the world outside the Bible. I mean, a bit no. Not the first best the first best seller worldwide, and it wasn't like, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress was a best seller in the English speaking world centuries ago, but the name of the book was, Knowing God. He was very much a a biblicist and very much, an errantist. The first time I heard him speak was at the international conference on biblical and errancy in 1982 in San Diego, California, a a very, a turning point in my understanding that conference. I was able to listen to all the all the leading men on the subject, and they had signed the Chicago statement, which is still a valid statement on biblical inerrancy.
And they were there to explain why they signed that statement. They signed it in Chicago, so they called it the Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy. And his name was, he was so well known. I can't even oh, J. I. Packer. And JI Packer said of the New American Standard Bible, he said he said, it is the most, without question, accurate translation in English in English that is available to us. And it gets you where the message of the Bible will take you sentence by sentence. It's just that the ride the ride through the sentence is a rough ride. That's what that's what he said. For my reason, I don't I don't think I don't it didn't feel that rough to me, I think. I understand it simple enough, and it is accurate. I mean, all the, all the, the seminaries and colleges that take the Bible seriously, demand use of that Bible when it comes to study for their classes because it is accurate. There's no question.
By the way, the most accurate rendition of it is not called the New American Standard Bible anymore. It's called the Legacy Standard Bible. And the reason it's called the Legacy Standard Bible is because the Lachman Foundation, which, publishes the New American Standard Bible, that's a charitable foundation. Fascinating history behind it. But they came out with a 71 edition, and then they came out with a revision where they tweaked it where they thought they could make it a little better in 1995. And then in 02/2020, they came out with another edition, and they tweaked it and thought they could make it better. And they would send they sent a copy of the 02/20 to a well known Bible teachers that had influence throughout the country.
One of them was John MacArthur with, arguably, the leading Bible expositor in the world today for just fame. He didn't know who he is. Well, he sent it back to them and said, I can't use this thing. Now keep in mind, John MacArthur went to school to the translators of the New American Standard Bible. He knew many of them, and much of the translation occurred right there where he went to school. And at that time, they were translating it, when he was in in seminary. So he knew them. Well, they sent him that 2020 edition. He sent it back, said, I can't use it. They said, why not? Well, he said, well, it's obvious you're trying to be gender neutral. Why are you doing that? Well, they said, well, because we're competing with the new international, version, they are gender neutral, and that has become popular. Everybody likes it, and, we're trying to compete with them. He said, well, the world may be changing, when it comes to sexual identity, but I'm not changing, and I can't do it. And but he said, I'll tell you what I will do. He talked to the folk at the seminary there, the men.
He said, if you'll give us license to do an update of it, make sure it's still accurate with the new discoveries of manuscripts in the last, thirty years or so, twenty five years. We'll do it. If you license us to do that, we'll call it the new legacy Bible because I went to school with all the translators of the new American standard. So we'll call it the legacy, new legacy translation. And, then you keep the copyright. We won't take the copyright. And they did that. So the new legacy Bible is the new American Standard Bible with just minor tweaks made where they thought they could, some discoveries had made had been made, the on the words and what they mean. And one of the words, of course, that are changed in that is the word translated or not translated, but they use the Jewish, the rabbi's method when they came to the name of God instead of translating it it for what they meant what it meant way back since the very beginning with the King James and beyond, they said, in all capital letters, the Lord.
The Lord. Well, that's not a translation of anything. That's following the rabbinical habit of saying, well, if we never say the name of God, we'll never take it in vain. In other words, they drew a standard of law that was not God's. They put a buffer zone between them and what the Bible says and just so they wouldn't cross. But remember this, when you're translating the Bible and understanding the Bible, God wants you to un to occupy the field. He wants to occupy the field. When he uses a word, he wants you to know what it means. Well, the they follow the rabbis. They don't know what it means. They didn't care. They just wanted to say, oh, this is what the rabbis did. That's silliness. So the New American Standard and the Legacy Bible did away with the Lord and put what they believed was the name of God in there.
Well, that's not going far enough for me. They said Yahweh. Well, they did two things wrong when they did that. I'm not complaining about it. I'm just they're trying to move forward. It's not a two syllable word. It's a three syllable word. I think that's clear. And the King James Bible had or the old translations had that right. They said, Jehovah. Jehovah. It's three syllables. But they didn't have the pronunciation right because they're they anglicized it and Germanized it. Anglo Saxon is a Germanic tongue. They Germanized it with hard hard vowels.
It's not Jehovah. It should be pronounced Yahoa. Yahoa clearly. Well, why they why do they don't do why they don't do that? I'll tell you why they don't do it. Because like I said before, once people get used to a certain Bible, they believe that straight from the mouth of God. I don't care what it is, and they're not gonna stand for anybody changing anything. Well, that's silliness, of course. I mean, if the if the truth is otherwise, well, I don't I don't make it yahoha in my translation. I make it I just translate it for what it means. I think God wants us to know what his name means. I don't think it. I know it. That's why I put it in there. And what the word means is he he happens. He happens.
It's the verb, the Hebrew verb of undefined action like in English, happen. That's a verb of undefined English. It happened. It became. It occurred. It befell. It be tied it. Those are verbs of undefined action. We don't know exactly what the action is, but the context provides it. But he's saying of himself God is saying of himself, I'm the one that makes everything happen. I'm the happening one, and I'm where it's happening. And when he it's a statement of his absolute sovereignty and predestination, for example. That's what that word means. He's in control of everything. He makes everything happens that does happen. He just doesn't know it's gonna happen. He makes it happen. He's the happening one. How do you process that? Well, first of all, you accept what it says because it's a matter of fact if the testimony and the evidence is sure. Then you try to see how it works out, and there are ways to do that. The first thing you do, if the Bible says it, it's the evidence and we accept the evidence for what it is. Well, back to the back to the revised standard version just to put a cap on this. The revised standard standard version is good, but Bible translation is something that people have been doing for many centuries.
And it's, it's important that we express the truth of the Bible in our own tongues, in our own day, in a way that's understandable to folk and be accurate about it. If you can be readable and eloquent, do it. If you can't, we live we don't live in a k in an age of accuracy, but political popularity is not should is not what should govern Bible translation. What should govern Bible translation is what God said. And Jesus Christ, God in human flesh, said every jot, that's the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet and every tittle, that's a serif on the end of some of the letters that would turn one Hebrew letter to another.
Every one of them will come to pass. In other words, he's he's certifying every word and every letter of the Bible. And it's our job to get it across as accurately as we possibly can. And that's what we try to do, and that's what God's man, starting way back there before William Tyndale, but in the English speaking world, John Wycliffe, starting there really with the Latin Vulgate, that's what men have tried to do. And by the way, that has what may has what has been what has made the English speaking world an engine of wealth and prosperity unlike the world has ever known. No question. Oh, by the way, I wanna mention because Roger and I have talked about this. The one translation that here's just another example of it that's unknown, never got a lot of traction, but he put it into his translation because he recognized that the English speaking world is what it is and has it had the enjoyment it has had because the English speaking world, above all other people, have majored on Bible translation.
And the Reformation is of England of England is not identified with just one particular man. And you can say that to some degree in Scotland, although there were prominent personalities. But the reformation on the island of Britain, unlike the reformation on the continent of Europe, depended upon the translation of a book. That's what moved men more than anything else. We we were we were going like crazy in the English speaking world, translating the Bible into English. Oh, other people did it, but not like we did. Over and over, we just kept trying we're still trying to get it right. God help us.
That's what I'm trying to do. I I love it. It's the standard of God. I'm trying to get it right back to you, Roger. Well, I'd like to throw the option out there for the people that are looking into this with any depth.
[01:56:52] Unknown:
And I got this again from pastor Peters. In fact, I purchased my volume from him, for our Fenton, who most of you have never heard of. And and it's f e r r a r f e n t o n. Just his story, is will move you to tears almost, really. Worked on it his entire life. And one of the things for accuracy that and and our I used our our pastor in Atlanta came once a month, James Brueggemann. He was traveling, in the Southeast, and he, like Brent, studied Greek and all the Latin, the old old languages, you know, and, Hebrew. And so every time he'd come to a word, Brueggemann, and he'd say, well, it could mean this or this or this or this.
And every time, the the Fenton version was right on. I mean, every time. There's another guy in the congregation, who had one. We look across the room at each other and smile. But, for our Fenton, I think he used the Greek manuscripts. What? Septuagint?
[01:58:02] Unknown:
Or Yeah. Farfetchum and that that was the one I was referring to. I said Roger and I have talked about it. Farfetchum's policy was this, and he's he said it right up front in his preface that he recognized that the Bible in English being so available to our people has made us who we are. Then there's no question about that. That is the first volume of our common law tradition. Mhmm. Well, the second in in our declaration of 76, the laws of nature, that's our common law tradition unwritten, and the laws of nature's God. That was the phrase from the Scottish enlightenment that referred to the Bible written the final court of last resort in any cases of an of apparent inconsistency. Of course, there is none. But if there is, he the Bible is final. And Fenton recognized that, but he also recognized that we need to keep working on it.
And and he did. Now
[01:58:54] Unknown:
everybody that translates to Roger, you ahead. Oh, I was just like you. He's he's been his entire lifetime. He was a very successful businessman. He, I think he had five different successful businesses. And when he went to Oxford, he was an atheist.
[01:59:09] Unknown:
Yes. And every person that translate seeks to translate the Bible, including Jerome, when he translated the Latin Volga. I don't fault him for what happened that them worshiping worshiping the Volga is final. That's silly, but, that's what Rome said. But even him, he believed he could do something to provide the word of God in a language people spoke. At that time, it was Latin. Well, people don't speak Latin anymore instead. Why would anybody wanna do that?
[01:59:38] Unknown:
We didn't even bring up characters like Westcott and Hort and some of these other folks that were in the that were they were all covered in that pastor Peter's King James only version. So interesting six hours of really interesting facts. So highly recommended.
[01:59:55] Unknown:
Yeah. If I may.
[01:59:57] Unknown:
Yeah. Samuel, you may. We're about to let me close out here first on the audience, because they're gonna get caught in your question. But, of course, it's Roger Sales and Brent Winters, and it's the Friday edition. We've been doing this for more years than either one of us would like to remember. And, I'm assuming it'll continue next week. So you can catch us six days a week here, and, you can catch Brent common lawyer dot com. We didn't even get to plug your website there, Brent. I would urge regular listeners. I I think tomorrow, we got Austin. Young Austin is gonna be back. Our young, gold dealer that's just stumbled across us. Thanks to Julie. And I'm gonna have a pretty exciting announcement. Somebody is for you tomorrow that I think will, well, I think it'll put a smile on your face. See you tomorrow. Ciao.
Okay. Well, I thought they were finished there, Brent. We got our Crosby, Stills, and Nash without young acapella version here. Gonna lay our bodies down, and we're gonna come back tomorrow. See you. Alright. Samuel, go ahead.
[02:01:08] Unknown:
Yeah. Brent, how much would you say that these new translations, let's say since the seventies, early seventies, rely on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus?
[02:01:22] Unknown:
The new translations that you're talking about since the seventies, specifically, the new American Standard and the New International Version. Those are the ones that are best known. There are others maybe that I don't know about. There's so many. But those, especially in the New International Version, rely on the Sinaiticus in the in the New Testament, of course. That's not the Old Testament. But rely on Sinaiticus or Sinaiticus, either way, found, by the way, it was discovered, purportedly, at the monastery at Saint Catherine's, which is at Mount Sinai.
Discovered there purportedly by a German scholar named Tischendorf back in the eighteen forties. And then the New American Standard does as well. And Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Vaticanus is in the Vatican. Sinaiticus was discovered at the monastery of Saint Catherine's, a Greek Greek Orthodox monastery. And then there's, two others, Aleph, which is the name of the third one named after the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. I'm not sure why they did that, but that was, these are primary and they're the minds of those translators. Why? Well, Constantine in about, well, that was about or after March, 03/25 was the council, of course, the big council of Mysia.
And, Constantine ordered a translation of the Bible be made in quarto or in, Uncial and column in Uncial in columns. All four of those translations, every letter is in Uncial. What does that mean? That means in capital letters. Why did they do that? Well, for the same reason we capitalize letters, today. For example, in the King James Bible, one's coming after it, we capitalize or the publishers capitalize the word the Lord when it should be translated Yahuah. But they use the Lord because they that's what the the rabbi say Adonai, which Hebrew for Lord. They won't pronounce the word, but they use all caps to to communicate that this is a very important word. Of course, we say I say, every word the Bible says is important and of equal dignity. It's the word of God recorded.
There's no there's no levels of importance. Every word must tell fully. Well, they capitalize the whole Bible in respect of the Bible. This has been going on through all cultures and centuries, and don't get caught up in all that Patriot stuff about all caps and no one. That that's hogwash every bit of it. They'll charge you a lot of money to draft documents for you, and you'll make the judge mad, and they'll try to send you to jail. Forget that. Yeah. That's not worth the trouble. But capital letters have No, Brent. You say it back, Addison. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait Give me give me He doesn't answer a question.
Yeah. Yeah. Give me long pause before you start because there's an overlap. And then once you start talking, I can't finish. I'll try to finish up so you can comment. But try to give long pause, and I'll try to do the same thing. I'll quit in just a minute, whoever was gonna say something. But, capital letters, those four, they were all in the same tradition, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Olaf, all of the same tradition, and it is believed, although we don't know, it is believed and it makes sense that these are the four or four of, the same copies that Constantine ordered. He ordered 50 of them be transcribed. That was before the printing press, and that's what people believe they are.
But and there's good evidence of it. Now who was it tried to chime in a while ago?
[02:05:16] Unknown:
Samuel would ask the original question, I think.
[02:05:20] Unknown:
Okay. Go ahead. Yeah. You know, Vaticanus came from the Vatican, and the Sinaiticus, which Tischendorf said he dug up in because the monks were burning it for scrap to get a fire going, was was claimed to be written by a living man by the name of Constantine Simonides, and I don't think it's ever been disproven. Well, it kinda So you got two things coming from the Vatican because Tischendorf was also tight with the popes.
[02:05:55] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. Number one, I'm glad you brought that up. Number one, Vaticanus is not really from the Vatican that we know of, but we know it's stored there. We know that. They're they're the keeper of it, and they wouldn't let anybody look at it until very recently, by the way, in the large scheme of things. Just nailing down facts. Number two, I agree with you that Tichendorf's claims are are questionable as a matter of evidence. And I'm not fully persuaded about what he says and how he found it and the things you're talking about. Oh, that's true. And, of course, there was a full copy, and he said the monk had it in his cell. And he said, well, I got a lot of stuff like that. And he took what he found in the trash cans that the the monks were using, when they they were wiping their pens using leaves from, what he said was that, Sinaiticus to wipe the ink off the end of their pens and no. Not Sinaiticus.
Other manuscripts is old. And then someone monk said to him, well, I've got, stuff like that in my cell, and he had this this manuscript of the entire Bible, Old and New Testament in Greek wrapped in, expensive cloth and laid up on a ledge in his cell on a on a timber of wood that he kept up there. And, oh, what's his nose? Tischendorf spent he was a German scholar from the universities one of the universities in Germany, spent the rest of his life, claiming, trying to get that back to Germany. So, no, I I recognize that, and I say that too. But you're you bring up things that are true, but I don't get overly exercised about it except to say, his claims are doubtful. And that's what you're saying. Am I right? Well, Brent
[02:07:42] Unknown:
Brent, did you did you know that between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, in the gospels alone, there's 3,000 different textual problems?
[02:07:53] Unknown:
Well, the no. That's no. No. No. That that's not true. They're more like 300,000. You're you're not even coming close. And this is another thing that people don't take cognizance of, the variations in the Bible. There's more than people say the the King James and other people even say. But, but the fact is about the variations, it's all a matter of the rules of evidence. Every bit of this. We're talking about the laws of evidence here. What is reliable evidence and what isn't? We have almost fixed 6,000 manuscripts of New Testament documents now. When the King James was translated, they had six, just six, and all of them were relatively recent, and they didn't even have enough manuscripts to translate the last book of the Bible. They didn't have any Greek manuscripts to translate the last 12 verses because the last leaf of the manuscript they had, which was a papyri leaf, had rotted and fallen off.
So, the Textus Receptus, as it came to be called, was being translated, from, into Greek. He was trying to publish it. His name was, what was that fellow? Erasmus. Yeah. Erasmus. Thanks, Larry. Erasmus. Yeah. The the the monk from The Netherlands, he back translated from the Latin Volgate into Greek so we'd have a Greek Greek words to translate from. By doing so, he introduced 12 new variations into the Greek text because he didn't have it. But that there are so many variations in all those 6,000 texts that you can hardly you can't nobody even knows, Larry. And the people, in, that come to catalog, the ones that have the ascendancy in cataloging and naming all the manuscripts and fragments that are discovered are in Germany.
And, they are have tried to catalog all the variations, and it's really not possible because of this. Well, let me say this first. Of all the variations, almost all of them are without any consequence at all. For example, spelling of a word using one vowel instead of another. And no matter how you cut it, it's still the same word. No matter how much you look in the rest of the Greek tongue, you don't find anything different. There are other, variations. Most of them are like that. There are other variations. For example, in the Greek New Testament, there are right around 20,000 occurrences of the definite Greek article, Around 20,000 occurrences.
Now that means if you learn the the Greek the use of the Greek definite article, you have learned, you have learned one seventh one seventh of the Greek New Testament. That's how many times the definite article is used. It's used so much that if we translated it into English, it would become absolutely senseless. Because it says things like this. If I were to translate the article just as an example of the way it's used, there's articles in front of the nouns, definite article. The definite article in English is the. We only have one, the. And that indefinite article is a.
A house or the house. If I say the house, well, I'm speaking about a particular house, it adds identity to the noun. If I say a house with the the indefinite article a, it could be a lot of I'm stressing. I'm I'm not talking about any particular house. Well, in the Greek tongue as well as the Hebrew, by the way, there is no indefinite article. You just have noun if it's indefinite. If it's definite, then you have the the definite article. You'll see it there. And the Greek tongue would say something like this. The Peter said to the Jesus.
Well, that's rough English. It's good Greek, but it's rough English. And that's not translated hardly at all, of course, in any translation because we don't say the Peter spoke to the Jesus. We say Peter said to Jesus. Well but is it important? And the answer is yes. It's important because definitely God saw to it by the superintendents of his spirit to put those articles in there. And to stress the identity of the noun that the speaker, the rec the recorder is talking about a particular Peter, not just any Peter and a particular Jesus, not just any Jesus. See, that can be real important. There are a lot of Jesuses in that day and a lot of Peters, and we see that in ancient history and in the Bible itself. So, there are a lot of variations in the manuscripts with things like that that don't make any difference at all.
They don't change anything and couldn't change anything, and most of all variations are like that. But let me say this. There are some variations that are, are a difference, but even those that are big that we know about don't make any difference. For example, the last 12 verses of the gospel of Mark are not are not in those old manuscripts you're talking about. They're not in the Sinaiticus. They're not in Vaticanus. Although between those, there are some variations too. They're not in any of those. But they are in lots of manuscripts from the Middle Ages from the Middle Ages, that what we call the majority.
Most manuscripts have those, but those manuscripts are from the Middle Ages. Now here's the question that I think should be asked, two questions, and this comes back to the laws of evidence. We call it, in common law, we call it the best evidence rule. What is the best evidence? Is it the oldest evidence or the majority? The majority of the manuscripts say this particular thing or the oldest ones, should we use those? Now that's the fundamental argument that that is dealt with in this manuscript argument between the majority text, as we say. That's the King James, the received text, and and the there's not agreement among those either, by the way. And the, we call it the the, minority text.
In other words, does one old manuscript is that more reliable than a thousand more recent manuscripts? Now the rules of evidence under the best evidence rule would say the closer the manuscript is to the source in general, not always, but in general, that would be the preferable one for we would give that greater weight of reliability. Let's take, for example, the last 12 verses of Mark. Those last 12 verses are kinda weird. And as a matter of fact, as a matter of Greek grammar, they don't fit the gospel of Mark at all. Whoever wrote Mark, I assume it was Mark. He had ways of writing things and doing things and his personality and his vocabulary and those last 12 verses do not fit Mark, but they're there in the majority of the manuscripts.
Number one. Why do we say that the older is better? And why do we say that the shorter the shorter, man the manuscripts that have a shorter text, you know, or a shorter sentence or a shorter phrase or are in general more reliable than the longer? Well, because under the best evidence rule, we discover that mankind is more prone to keep things in the text than to get rid of them. And we discover that throughout the history of the church, the monks working in the scriptorium. By the time you get to the middle ages, you have professional scribes copying this stuff out in the monasteries.
Greek minus or, Roman monasteries and Orthodox monasteries. Really that's all the same. Historically, that was all the monolithic church of the middle ages. Those men had a lot of weird ideas and they were under the control of some weird priests. I mean, weird and sex perverts on top of that, and they still are. That's historic fact. It's always been that way. Let's not deny history, and let's be, let's be halfway intelligent men that will accept the evidence of history. Do we want to rely on all that? I don't know. That's the question. I'm not saying that that's the controlling question, but that's a matter of the weight of evidence. And here we go again, Larry. We are people, men, Christian men are to look at the evidence and we are to be comfortable with some uncertainty of evidence. That's what evidence is. It's a matter of wait a minute. How does this fit with this? And we're looking at the manuscripts of the New Testament. Let me end with this.
All of these variations, there's not a one, not a one, among all of them that's ever been discovered that changes any doctrine of Christianity. Not a one at the fundamental level. In other words, who Jesus Christ is, what salvation is, how it happens. None of the variations change any. Well, and the King James would say, for example, well, the new the new there these guy these translations that follow these, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and all that. Well, let's let's take Sinaiticus, for example. Is it evidence? Yes. Is that it's just discovery and its origins questionable?
Yes. In my mind, I've read the history of it. It's questionable. Is it evidence? Yes. It's it does pass the test to be offered before the jury and should be offered. And you should con you're considering it, and you've revealed to me that you have read about this, and you're trying to work through it as we all have and are still are. But I'm I've just, encourage you. It's a matter of evidence. You have to come to your decision. I've come to mind. I've come to mind on a lot of things about this. I haven't revealed them all here, but it's just a matter of using the evidence. But God has not left us without evidence that's so overwhelming of the truth of everything that's important, everything of any consequence in the New Testament or the Old. The evidence is so utterly overwhelming it is a veritable embarrassment of riches.
And God has made the Christian man's mind persuadable to the truth. Nobody else's, but he has and he has provided him not just a little evidence, overwhelming evidence. And so, yeah, I'm glad you're looking at it. I'm looking at it. I will till they till I leave this veil of tears. But I do want to say something about it in this sense, and I have done so to say there's no variations there that make any difference in Christian doctrine. Does the King James or does the new King James Bible have things in it and words in it? Yeah. Look. New American Standard Bible doesn't have? You bet. It's the shorter version. Not a lot, but, I mean, a word here, a phrase there, it does that. Yeah. That's true. Go ahead, Larry. Do you wanna somebody wants to respond. Samuel, I I wanted to say that. Cut out. Hold on. Hold on. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Roger takes precedent. Roger, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I wanted to say there's very few places on the dial that you can find discussions
[02:19:18] Unknown:
like this in this depth on these kind of very important historical and significant topics. So go ahead, whoever's gonna say something. I just wanted to make that comment. Yeah. It's
[02:19:30] Unknown:
Samuel. It Westcott and Hort Yep. And and Tischendorf were agents for the Catholic church.
[02:19:41] Unknown:
Okay. But stop and consider. The agents of the Catholic Church were the monks and the priests that copied out the majority text that the King James uses. And the King James trans the King James Translator, to call them translators, included all the apocryphal books of Rome in the King James Bible. We could go on and on and on with those arguments, pointing to people like like, Ted Weiland does, they appoint to them. Seem to have a you're talking to them. Samuel, stop it. Stop. I'm Damn it. And I'm and by the way, Sam, I'm sorry. I thought I was talking to Larry. I get mixed up thinking about my subject. Samuel, please. I'm sorry. You're Samuel. I'm I I got it now. But the one the men that drafted the constitution of The United States were many of them, I think, not many, some at least were controlled by the bankers. Well, then no question.
But that's not an argument against the constitution any more than saying that Peter the apostle was a scoundrel and Abraham was a scoundrel and Isaiah had personal problems, and we all know that. And and Matthew was a tax collector. I mean, who could be lower on the scale in the eyes of the nation even now? But God will pour truth through anybody he wants to pour it through and their personality, and he will make straight straight licks with crooked sticks. And if we didn't have the Roman monks, we wouldn't have these variations and the majority text at all. And if we didn't have Greek Orthodox priest at Constantinople who smuggled out the manuscripts in the New Testament rottenness of man is no argument at all. God uses men. That's what he does to make, to make to get done what he wants to get done. But go ahead, Samuel. Hey, Brent.
[02:21:31] Unknown:
Yeah. No, Larry. Same.
[02:21:35] Unknown:
No. I I've you know, if we're gonna agree to disagree, I I really don't believe that the the Catholic church never translated the Bible according to Jesus Christ.
[02:21:50] Unknown:
And they haven't covered that up. Sad. And they had a girl they had can I finish? No. No. You can't. They had a screen tell else on it. No. Samuel, you can't. I wanna break in. That's my prerogative. You can't prove a negative. Nobody can. So that's that's not a a sensible statement to start with. But I I want you to go ahead and I do. Say. Go ahead.
[02:22:14] Unknown:
Listen. I there's no way to have a conversation here, so I'm gonna quit. I'm just gonna say that I don't trust the Catholic church any further than I can throw it.
[02:22:25] Unknown:
Well, well, Samuel, I don't trust you. Samuel, listen to me. Listen to me, Samuel. I don't trust me or you any farther than a guy can throw either one of us. That's silly talk.
[02:22:38] Unknown:
We're we're agreed.
[02:22:39] Unknown:
I just when you talk about as you know, the men that drafted the Bible would not be welcome in any church today, including yours. You're not gonna convince me otherwise. I think that's the way it is. Men don't recognize that as though there's some kind of saints out there like the translators of the King James Bible. And if you'd read the story of their lives, you would find out interesting men, but boy, did they have problems. And you probably wouldn't want your children near them either. Let's get real about humanity. And the one thing that people we're talking about the reformed tradition of our founders. The one thing that goes along with predestination that people that call themselves Christians don't accept is the absolute and utter depravity of the human heart.
And along with that, the absolute and exclusive use that God makes of these men with depraved hearts to do what he wants done, and he does. I think those are two doctrines that are fundamental that have been forgotten and should be acknowledged, and it brings humility. It brings a lot of humility. Who would say somebody who said the things that Oregon and Augustine said? These fellows said things that makes me think that their minds are twisted really bad at some points. But then I read other things they said, and I say, wow. He's got that nailed. That's biblical.
And the same thing is true of me. There are a lot of people who listen to me, and they say this is ridiculous. What is Brent saying? Maybe I say things that are true, maybe I don't. But what I do is give you my testimony, just my testimony of what I clearly see in the Bible. And if I clearly see something in history, I'll testify to that too. But I don't I think it's wrong to argue, though I wouldn't trust the Catholic church as far as I could throw them. Well, I wouldn't trust the Baptist. I wouldn't trust the King James. I that what's the difference? I don't the the Bible says there isn't. But back to whoever had the floor wanted to say something. Well, I think Samuel did It's Larry. And Larry's there.
[02:24:38] Unknown:
Go ahead, Larry. Yep.
[02:24:41] Unknown:
Yeah. So, I'd like to circle back to my question earlier on in the program. But before I do that, I just wanna make sure I understand something you said. So you I think Samuel brought this up right after I asked my my question early in the program, about the fourteenth amendment. And so, Brent, do you agree that there are no US citizens, today because they were the former freed slaves? However, you do agree a person can volunteer to be one. Is that correct?
[02:25:16] Unknown:
Well, if a man comes from another country and he wants to be naturalized, he can do that. Is that voluntarily? I know people have done that. You probably do too, don't you?
[02:25:29] Unknown:
Right. They will be a US citizen, but Roger teaches even after someone's naturalized with after a certain period of time, they can
[02:25:40] Unknown:
they can become what's known as a national, a state citizen. Well, the the government agrees with it because we've had it happen. I'm sorry, Roger. It's not what Roger says. The government agrees with what is submitted, Larry.
[02:25:55] Unknown:
Well, okay.
[02:25:57] Unknown:
I'm sorry. No. I'm I'm not putting you on the spot, Roger. I'm just saying that that's what Roger teaches to Brent. Look. Brent doesn't see it that way. I recognize that, and I respect it.
[02:26:08] Unknown:
I understand what he sees. I understand the way he's coming from. Okay?
[02:26:13] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. My my only idea is and, Roger gets it apparently. But I wanna say it again because you're pressing men. You wanna get it clear. You are not who the government says you are. You are what true law says you are, and that starts in our Christian tradition. And you if the constitution, if the fourteenth amendment contradicts our understanding of what it means to be an American, oh, then that's not what you are. And, you are what our constitution says you are. And if you believe the fourteenth amendment means one thing or another, it seemed to me that you I think you said a while ago, all the people that the fourteenth amendment was targeting are gone. Is that true? That's why I understand it. No. I'm sorry. Roger, that's you tell me if I'm right.
All the people that were former slaves are now dead and gone. And that would
[02:27:10] Unknown:
Well, see, they've set up that position so they could I believe this is what was the cause of the civil war is what I've come to believe. And I'll tell you what I lately realized that buttresses that is this is exactly the same time they were grooming Scofield. So they were already thinking that far ahead, both religiously and politically.
[02:27:31] Unknown:
And I think that they
[02:27:33] Unknown:
did that and got those two amendments in there so that they could control eighty years later, control The US through the bankruptcy, and then through the dollar that's based on this status,
[02:27:45] Unknown:
control the world. And that's exactly what's happened. Well, I can't argue with what's happened. I'm making this point simply. And I don't I'd be half a heart I think the devil thinks I had that quit that far. I think the usefulness of the evil empire just want to fill their lust, and he manipulates. Well, they do. I see the Bible teaches it, but any to any has. But, the fourteenth amendment, Roger, I'll ask you and then you can respond. Maybe I haven't focused in on this enough with you. Does the fourteenth amendment target freed men of color that were slaves? Is that the idea? That was the original intent. Yeah. The original manifestation
[02:28:23] Unknown:
is a better way to put it. And it's a a a firm go go ahead, Roger. Something else. Have you heard Trump lately say? He said the fourteenth amendment was for the children of slaves. Yes. And that's You know what? He's exactly correct. But it's not then. It's now.
[02:28:41] Unknown:
Okay. So, it's a standard of law, has always been and still is, that once the purposes of a a law, a standard, and the constitution of The United States is a standard of law, once its purposes are fulfilled, it has no more force.
[02:28:58] Unknown:
Period. Well, Brent, listen. We don't our enemies don't think like we do. They do things different. And if you can't understand how they think, you probably can't get your arms around this totally. And I know we had this conversation. We've been having this conversation, audience, for years. Yeah. We have. But nothing new here. Okay? No. No. No. Nothing new. That's why it gives me cold chills when Larry brings it up, but I understand it. Okay? Yeah. I I respect Brent's opinion. I got a different insight. I can think like them, and I've unraveled this, son of a bitch. And the way they get you into it, Brent, is not voluntarily in the front end. It's voluntary on the back end. And their thinking is, if I ask you what you are even though it was set up on fraud and you agree, well, I'm gonna take you at your word.
We don't think like they do.
[02:29:54] Unknown:
Well and I'm I'm satisfied. They think pretty crooked, but I'm just making the point that I am what the law says I am. I the the fourteenth amendment by any other standard, and you see this in the Bible, you see it in our common law tradition. And by the way, just to bring up one other point as proof of this, from '19, when say the fourteenth amendment, Roger, was that 1871 or when was it? '68. '68. Okay. From the fourteenth amendment clear up until the early nineteen fifties, really, Brown versus Board, lawyers still and courts still call the fourteenth amendment and the legislation passed in the eighteen seventies to enforce it.
The sleeping civil rights laws and amendment. They call it sleeping. Dormant. They use the word dormant, which in Latin means sleeping. Well, why was it sleeping? Well, really it was dead. They want to call it sleeping because they wanted to revive it, but it was dead. It wasn't used. Nobody paid attention to it. I don't see the Jim Crow laws as sleeping. I see them as kind of out front. Well, they they say they're it wasn't applied. It wasn't used to give the man of color the vote and to let him go to school with little white boys and girls. It was dead. Really that way where everybody forgot it and just did away with it and said, done. Let's move on. You see, I I think these guys in the a eighteen hundreds
[02:31:23] Unknown:
knew exactly what was going on today. And I think they knew all the way back then because they know us a hell of a lot better than we know them. Okay? Sun Tzu stuff. I think that they knew back then that they were gonna ask you. They're gonna put you into this condition with a bankruptcy. They're gonna ask you, is that you? Are you a citizen of The United States? Are you a resident? And have you signed something? And now they've got your agreement. And they're gonna proceed that way because of the slave and bastards that they are.
[02:31:52] Unknown:
I just can't I can't accept that they're that smart to think that far ahead because I see. It's not them. It's Satan. Brent, it's not them. It's Satan. That's that's Labor is Satan's plan. They are the useful idiots of the devil himself. I I just said that. Right. Okay. We're on the same page there. So the devil is orchestrating useful idiots to get what he wants, but they aren't thinking ahead that far. They just want what they want when they want it. They're driven by their lust. And the devil has a big plan here. I mean, scratch himself. Yeah. They they can't do their lust until they've got control of us. Now I'm telling you,
[02:32:27] Unknown:
for fourteen years, we've been submitting these documents. For fourteen years, they've been recognized. And the only thing that they can do is send back, and it's pretty slickly worded, I'll agree, the buff letters on the passport application. And that's the only defense they've got, and that's pretty easily pierced when you've got the kind of knowledge and understanding we have. So all I can say is whatever my theory is and however it registers with you, wherever you are and whoever you are, They recognize it every time.
[02:33:01] Unknown:
If you file an affidavit like that, you're doing so under your duty. The constitution protects it of, petitioning for redress of grievances and corrections. So you're doing that. Is there anything wrong with that? No. There's everything right about it. And, the whole word, even the word citizen, is not part of our common law tradition. It's a law of the city word Mhmm. Code of Justinian in the Greek and Roman world, the Babylonian tradition. It so it confuses us. But, anyway, getting back to the point, the difference I see is, if there is any, I'm just saying no. I don't care what they say I am. I know what the law says I am. But if I wanna correct them, I can do that. I do that when I go to court. I correct what the judge says. I file a motion. I say, no. That's not the the standard. No. That's not the facts. Wait a minute. The way it works, the way I understand the law is this. And that's what that's the way it works in our common law tradition. But that doesn't doesn't I'm never gonna agree with somebody saying things that aren't gonna aren't true. And And if they're saying things that aren't true, I don't wanna agree with that, and I'm not going to. Then I wouldn't either. Yeah. And you're not either, and that's why you're saying what you're saying. Well, this is a fine point, Roger, between us. And I don't know for sure whether I'm almost thinking you're agreeing with me.
[02:34:20] Unknown:
Well, I understand what you're saying. And here's the way I see what you're saying. You're born under God's laws until your feet come out of mama's birth canal unless you're a breech birth. K? Because right then, that o o o slick throws that blanket over you at that point. You don't know it when you're young. But then after you get 18, they start asking you, hey. Do you agree with us? Are you in this status here, this this, fourteenth amendment status? You go, yeah. And they go, what? Do you, agree to allow us to govern you and give us the consent to govern you in that capacity under the laws of Washington, DC? And you go, yeah. And you sign something. You've agreed with their fraud. One of the reasons they have to, recognize this is because all that fraud.
[02:35:06] Unknown:
Well, if it's fraud if it's fraud then, it it's not true. Because I know. Yeah. And you've said that before too. So it's still not true. Let me go back to another point. This is even more fundamental, but to the same, same question. One of the most powerful, duties that God has given to our the Adam's race is to name our children and go by the name by our discernment that we we wanna go by. In other words, our names mean something. We should think they do. And to take that as our name, and we're against the whole world according to our laws, even in our states. And, God himself in the Bible is the power of name.
And that that is the power of saying this is who I am, be damned everybody else.
[02:35:54] Unknown:
That's really what that is. It's what your choice is from it's got to be your choice. You've got to be able to decide what set of laws you're gonna live under or else it's utter tyranny. Open and blatant. Let me give the two. Yeah. That's true. Let me give another example, and that I see that, Roger. Another example. Most of the New Testament,
[02:36:13] Unknown:
epistles are written to Christian people who don't know who they are, and that's why they that's why the epistles are written. Mhmm. I mean, Paul John says right in the first chapter of his first epistle, I write these things to you that you may know and that you may have enjoyment. Fact is you don't fully grasp who you are and because you aren't, you're letting other people define who you are and you're missing out on the enjoyment. So they are Christians. They know their identity in Jesus Christ. No. They didn't know their identity and Jesus Christ didn't understand it. That doesn't change their status. They are who they say they are. And, when communist take over, they want to redefine everybody, give everybody new names, tell them who their country is, do away with the past.
Well, that's trying to usurp the place of God. God's in charge of that. And to understand who you are and to assert it is really the foundational duty of the Christian man and woman. So this whole thing that you're talking about, Roger, goes to that point. Yeah. I believe. Well,
[02:37:21] Unknown:
you know what? I thanks to John and Glenn. I was always you know what drove me all these years, Brent?
[02:37:27] Unknown:
What?
[02:37:28] Unknown:
Nonresident alien at 26 CFR one point one dash one a. Uh-huh. And I said, man, they have gone to a lot of trouble to do this right here. What's behind it? Boy, that drove me for years.
[02:37:43] Unknown:
Uh-huh.
[02:37:44] Unknown:
And, so over the years, God what's the Bible say above all, seek understanding? Uh-huh. Well, I've got understanding. And you and I have talked about this before. When you get enough knowledge in your old cranium up there Uh-huh. All of a sudden, you start get given answers. Uh-huh. But here's an answer. Bam. You go, holy smoke. Why didn't I think about that? Okay? Mhmm. So that's what has happened over all these years, and it's just like a puzzle little piece by little piece. And somebody would say, well, Vatel Law, our nation says every man has a right of personal political self determination. Oh, really?
And it's just over all these years that that has come to me as understanding. And so, the the the day I got and saw the first passport application and everything came together for me, and I somewhat reluctantly, because I was moving to Argentina come hell or high water, somewhat reluctantly, sent in a passport application with my five page affidavit in it. That was the summer they changed the law that you can't travel to Canada or The Caribbean or Mexico on a driver's license. You had to get a passport card. Mhmm. What's what year wait. What year was that? 02/2007. Oh, okay. Okay. Well And and they were swamped with people that already had vacation plans because they changed the rule late in the year. And, so I was waiting and waiting and waiting, like, eight more weeks, and bam, finally, one day, it came in the mail.
And I went, holy smokes.
[02:39:22] Unknown:
You know, Roger, you have for example, let's see another example of this point about identity. Why did, Rome burn thousands upon thousands, crucify thousands upon thousands? Why did Bloody Mary murder translators of the Bible all told about people that were interested in that, about 300? All these 100 a 100,000 people Rome murdered in in Europe during the the craze of the witches, the hammer of the witches. Why? Well, a lot of it was because, the the evil empire said, this is you who you are. Your identity, for example, is in Rome. And if you say your identity is in Jesus Christ, ultimately, we'll kill you. And they did. And if you were not They still are. Yes. And if you're not baptized into the Roman system and in Europe, it was a monolith of Romanism.
You had to have Christian baptism to have existence. The the the the state, the powers that be, the Roman church, and the Roman holy Roman empire, and all that baloney wouldn't even recognize your your existence and your identity unless you had it in a birth certificate recorded in a in a cathedral as a baby. That's what they did, and it was a matter of identity. And if you didn't take that identity, even if you took it and rejected it and became an Anabaptist, they'd burn you alive. If you were a Romanist and said a couple of things like Jesus Christ is and the Bible is central, well, they wouldn't burn you alive. They'd strangle you first then burn you, but you reject that birth certificate and they they burn you alive. And the the baptism certificate, which is the birth certificate, that's all that is. That's the way they called it back then. But it all comes back to if you reject the identity that the evil empire wants to put upon you and say no, that's not it. Well, yes, there can be problems and we are to realize what our true identity is and assert it. And most Christians don't.
That's the point that I see in all of this. And they don't enjoy the Christian life, the new birth because they don't. That's what John says in first John.
[02:41:32] Unknown:
Brent, I don't know about you, but my stomach is is really growling and Oh, yeah. We're almost three hours into the program today. Yeah. I know. Larry, I hesitate to address you.
[02:41:46] Unknown:
Yeah. I'm not trying to make you upset, Roger. I just was curious about Brent's perspective about what he thinks of the fourteenth amendment. But Oh, man. I'm just like default. What's Go back about twelve years in the archives,
[02:42:00] Unknown:
and every Friday, we'd have this discussion most Fridays. There. And it would be Cheryl I could possibly do. Hold on. Let me finish. Daryl and Chris and me ganging up on Brent. Now we did that for over five years. Okay?
[02:42:19] Unknown:
Right.
[02:42:19] Unknown:
Okay? And, just a follow The Spanish word is intenda. That means understand.
[02:42:28] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. Well, Roger Just a quick follow Roger. No. Go ahead. If you wanna go, Roger, I won't keep you, and I'll listen to what Larry says. No. I'm not. No. I'm hanging on to what he's gonna do. So let let me say.
[02:42:40] Unknown:
Okay. Yeah. So just to follow-up on my my question that I asked earlier in the program about, what there's there's patriot teachers out there teaching that that little pronoun for makes a big difference, when it when it's referring to the constitution. So I came up with three definitions. I was doing a little, you know, analyzing online, and they got the 1787 constitution, and that's the one that the Patriot teachers teach is saying it's a constitution for The United States Of America. And what they're saying is, that forms the union of unincorporated organic land jurisdiction, states of America into a union of sovereign states doing business as an unincorporated United States Of America.
And then the second constitution is the 1789 constitution, and this is where they changed the wording to of it's the constitution of The United States Of America, and the definition to this one is, this is a foreign British controlled district government was created of The United States Of America, meaning apart from, outside of, or belonging to The United States Of America. And then the last one is the Constitution of The United States Of America in 1868, which appears virtually identical to the 1789 constitution. It is no longer represent represented, by a trilateral international treaty among sovereign states, but instead secretively recast as a charter of a British commercial corporation in the business of providing government services.
So I'd like your thoughts on on those three constitutions, or if or is that just a bunch of patriot mythology?
[02:44:42] Unknown:
That is patriot mythology. It's bad enough. Come up all that creative stuff, that's just hogwash. Just silly hogwash. Not only that, they're claiming to be grammarians, and they got all that wrong too. So first of all, you said, of The United States Of America then for The United States Of America. Is that is that two of them? Is that what you said?
[02:45:06] Unknown:
Right. So the 1787 is for it's a constitution for The United States Of America. K. And then 1787, they changed it of, and, 1868 is also of.
[02:45:19] Unknown:
Okay. So, there are two possibilities here, for and of. For, the use of the word for is that that that's understood to be the objective genitive. When you use the word of and and then also in the Greek New Testament, that's what it's called when that those concepts are used. Of is the is the ablative of source. Ablative of source. So in both cases, let's take either one. For The United States Of America, that means it's the direct object. A constitution for The United States Of America. That's easy. Is it for The United States Of America? Yes. Is it for the States Of America that are united? Yes. That too. And there's no difference between those two. It's for them. Oh, I like that. That sounds good. This constitution is for the states.
Then second, of ablative of source. Source, that means where did it come from? What is the source of this constitution? Constitution of ablative from The United States Of America. From ablative of source. The United States, The States Of America, those, 13 are original states. The constitution is from them. It's the product, the product of. That's another understanding of the ablative of source. The product of the states of America. Is there anything wrong with that? No. I like that too. In other words, the states are sovereign. They're the ones that produce it. Well, let's go to the constitution preamble. We, the people of The United States, in order to form a more perfect union. What's the people of The United States? That is the militia of the several states. There are 13 of them at that time, the several states of the union. So the militiamen are the ones that constitute the states. They're the ones that form the state governments. They're also the ones that in control of those state governments, the ambassadors of those state governments, the source of authority for those state governments that then said, we're gonna get together and we're going to lend our state's authority to forming the United States Of America.
That's what I understand how it happened. That's what I understand from those simple words. Either way you cut it, it's a good thing. But the only question is maybe which which one of those is in the original one? The the one that the that the ratifiers, the militiamen of the several states ratified when they constitute and I that 1787 is good, but the one after that's good too. That's just silly talk. Question. Those are the kind of variations we have in the Bible that are variations, a difference without a difference. That's what you have. And the Bible has a thousands, hundreds of thousands of those. Go ahead.
[02:47:56] Unknown:
Go ahead. Rick, go ahead.
[02:47:59] Unknown:
Okay. A possible reason for this, and correct me if I'm wrong, Brett, about my dates. 1787, they had the constitution, but it wasn't ratified till 1789 because the bill of rights wasn't in it until then. So in '89, it was ratified. So it was the constitution on.
[02:48:21] Unknown:
That's a good point. That's a good point. It was drafted in '88, offered in '89 or '8 or wrapped in '87, offered in '88 and ratified in '89. And that's it. If that's what it is, then that's it.
[02:48:35] Unknown:
Good point. Good point. Excellent. Thank you. Okay, Brent. I gotta go. You gotta go eat, Roger. We're getting the I am. I'm starving, man. Listen. Always a pleasure to have you on here. There are just very few places on the face of this dial that I know of that you can find these kinds of discussions on these deep, subjects and issues that we well, it's just incredible. So thank you, Brent, always. And, we'll see you next Friday, hopefully. You had we didn't get to discuss any of the stuff that's going on. Speaking of Catholics, Israel and Gaza destroyed the oldest daily Catholic services in the world. Do you hear about that?
No. Yeah. It was over in Gaza, and it's very interesting. They a tank. They hit it with two tank shells and then said it was a mistake. But even in destroying it, the cross on the top still stands. Now the other thing is the I guess they say it's a church that Jesus taught in. It's over in the West Bank. It's a town of Christians, and they've just destroyed or destroying that church also and trying to drive those people out. And the, Christians that live in Israel, they they can't get out fast enough. Scratch going on right now. K? Uh-huh. So, anyway, very interesting times.
I'll see y'all tomorrow. Thank you, Rod. Here. We got some we got some real exciting stuff coming, man. I think we finally hit hit one of those long veins. Okay?
[02:50:14] Unknown:
Yeah. We have. And, Roger, there's no place where we could find this kind of passion with the listeners that we have here. That's true. Yeah. So that makes it all richer for all of us. Well, I'm gonna go
[02:50:25] Unknown:
to, if all hearts are free. Roger's out of here. I'll see y'all tomorrow. Could be to Austin and a special announcement. It's gonna tickle you. Okay? Alright. Ciao. See you tomorrow. Thanks, Brent always and Franny.
[02:50:39] Unknown:
Bye. Bye.
[02:50:50] Unknown:
And that about wraps it up for the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales and Brent Ellen Winters, the Friday edition on eurofolkradio.com and Global Voice Radio Network. Thanks so much for joining us today. We're here Monday through Saturday, 11AM to 1PM eastern. Today, we went a little longer. It's not it's always nice when the guys can hang out a little bit afterward, And, I just wrap up some of the discussions of the show. Our our website is thematrixdocs.com, which is where you will find links to Eurofolk Global Voice, the free conference call links to join us live on the show, and also new student section interviews and downloads.
Thanks for joining us. I'm Paul from Global Voice Network. That is it for today. Take care. Blasting the voice of freedom worldwide, you're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[02:52:00] Unknown:
Bye bye, boys. Have fun storm in the castle.
Forward moving and focused on freedom. You're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network. This mirror stream is brought to you in part by mymitobust.com. For support of the mitochondria like never before. A body trying to function without adequate mitochondrial function is kinda like running an engine without oil. It's not gonna work very well. It's also brought to you by snapfat.com. That is snap,phat,.com. It's also brought to you by the Preyf International terahertz frequency wand through iteraplanet.com. Thank you so much for joining us, and welcome to the program.
[00:01:45] Unknown:
As would we, Alvin, and we're here to take another swing at it on this Friday, the nineteenth eighteenth. Excuse me. Eighteenth. Desi Ocho. Eighteenth of, July, and, we're gonna have mister Brent Winters with us. I think if he's not here already, he'll be here shortly. I'm sure. And, Roger Sales and Brent Winters on the Radio Ranch, we have a number of folks that help us us extend our reach, and the guy that knows all about that's Paul Veener. So, Paul, if you'd come on and please give these people proper credit and identification for helping us spread our message and extend our reach. Good morning, everybody.
[00:02:27] Unknown:
I would be happy to do that, Raj. We're on radiosoapbox.com. Thanks to our buddy, Paul, Paul English. You know, he hasn't joined us, in quite a while for a Friday show. I hope he can Well.
[00:02:42] Unknown:
Squeeze us in sometimes. He's, he's been absent for a while. Yes. Yeah. Just a little bit. Love having me. Blayton, let me say that.
[00:02:51] Unknown:
We're also on eurofolkradio.com. Thanks to pastor Eli James, and we're on Global Voice Radio Network, My Pet Project, and the links to Eurofolks Global Voice and free conference call, the numerous links to free conference calls so you can actually join us live on the show. Those are all on our website, thematrixdocs,d0cs,.com. And, well, that's about it.
[00:03:19] Unknown:
You know those, those thousand seats you keep talking about?
[00:03:22] Unknown:
Yeah. Yep. You might wanna Yeah. And I have 2,000 more waiting. 2,000 more seats waiting in the wings.
[00:03:29] Unknown:
You might wanna send the help out and dust those seats off. Okay? So, just a tip. Just a tip. Okay. There's some, there's some pretty pretty large things brewing in the background. We're gonna talk about it tomorrow. But today with Brent, we don't wanna take all that time and distraction because we like having Brent and Frannie along. Hi, Frannie. With us. Lots happening. Boy, I'm I mean, lots happening. So, anyway, did did Brent show up yet? I think I saw Yes. He did. Up there. Right? Okay. Both Brent and Francine are here. I saw Francine and her lovely Auburn hair there in that picture. Yes. I did. Good morning, both of you, actually.
I hope all is well. Brent, did you have a good week?
[00:04:15] Unknown:
Yeah. I did. Oh, yeah. Long as I'm north of dirt, I keep saying. Long as I'm north of dirt, I'm having a good day and a good week. I'm thankful to be here. I'm thankful to be anywhere. And Yeah. I hope you feel the same way. I do. Yeah. You do. Yeah. Ned turned 99 here recently.
[00:04:38] Unknown:
Is that right? God bless him, Brent. Yeah. He's in pretty good health too, isn't he? Well, he's still locomoting. And,
[00:04:46] Unknown:
but I'm not and he's still kicking, but not kicking as hard as he used to. But it quite a change for some of you. Many of you have experienced this, and I haven't yet. In other words, I haven't lost my parents yet, and I'm as I told mom the other day well, I've told her more than once more than the other day, and and it's something to be able to discuss the the advantages and the disadvantages of disadvantages of the different brands of hearing aids with your own son. You know? That kind of thing. And, but I do understand my, my I do understand old age. I've watched them for a long time, of course, and and, now that I'm there's more behind me than there is ahead of me by far.
I understand their attitudes a little better. I can feel the touch of it. You know? It's all there. I was just thinking the other day. I told my brother, I remember back when our great granddad was, exactly the same age I am now. And, the things he used to do and the comments he used to make, and and he goes way back. My great granddad, he was born in had one I had two grandparents born in 1888, and, then I had another one born in 1871. Grandma Douglas, 1871. Grandma grandma Hudson, grandma Mackenzie. 1875, see, both of them were born before Custer's last stand. And then Right. And right after the civil war. Yeah. And their parents were both involved. Well yeah. Yeah. Their parents were both veterans of the war. And then, my other grandparents were born around the turn of the century.
I mean, nineteen o five, nineteen o three, '19 1897. My granddad was born in '96 or '7. I think it was '7. But, to talk to them now, I wish I could ask them more, questions because my questions would be more to the point and more intelligent. You know? I remember my great granddad, he he would, you know, he lived in a different time. And when I say a different time, he would not be acceptable, period. Hardly anywhere in polite society in America today because I know what he thought and what he and you can tell a man by the jokes he tells. Right? You can tell what his attitudes are, what he likes, what he doesn't like. Both of my granddads were blackballed by the masons in the oil field.
You know, to be in the oil to have an oil field job was a plumb of a job even if you got awful dirty and worked hard because there was money pouring out of the ground and the people that worked in the drilling rigs and the pumping rigs and the pulling rigs, and they did all my father pull he was in the worked, pulling rigs, pulling pulling the rods out of wells. And my granddad was a driller, and, my other granddad was a, we call them roustabouts. He well, dad did that too. He, you know, he pulled the rigs and kept them pumping. He operated the powerhouse, and all the powerhouse back then operated on natural gas because it came right out of the well. Why spend money on energy to pump the pumps if you had it coming right out of the well?
So they that operated those, then that course there wasn't electricity anyway, so couldn't use that. But now they're all they run electric lines to the oil pumps. But, to hear him tell stories about the oil boom and the things that happened and the crazy things that happened. Of course, men are dangerous and passionate creatures, and so that's what drives history. History doesn't drive men. Economics doesn't drive men. Economics condition, outward forces. No. No. Men are the masters of those things, and they're what they're and they're they're evil or lack thereof is what drives history.
Men drive history. History doesn't drive men. By the way, if you went to public fool system, you'll see and remember that all the textbooks of history were written to show that the environment controlled men and they were victims. Men are victims. That's the whole point of history to the left, and that and the left in control all the history books still does. Oh, yeah. Of the fool system since going way back. I mean, even during the days of Horace Mann in the eighteen hundreds. Of course, the difference was back then, taxpayer and the governments didn't control well, not taxpayer. The governments did not control the school system in America because as much as we believe is true, they've been lied to us.
The government did not control and provide education to most of America even as back in the nineteen twenties. Well, in nineteen twenties, it was coming on strong. Were there public schools in America during Puritan America in the sixteen hundreds? Yes. But that doesn't mean the government can paid for them and control them. That's what's not said. Public education was important, but that was the job of the churches, and they did a very good job by my granddad. Mother granddad, the one that was born in '24, he was a school teacher.
He taught school for twenty seven years until they drove him out, the in the one room schoolhouses around home. And, when he passed in 1983, we received different things from him. I received his desk. And his desk was like a lot of desks were until really very recently. It's made of wood and pretty heavy, and it had a drawer right under where your legs slip under the desk. Lap lap drawer? Yeah. The lap where you pull it out and your pencils are in there and all that. And so I was going through nothing in it. I looked in the drawers. I pulled that drawer out, and I didn't see anything. Well, I thought I'd better check with my hands, so I just reached back in there and felt around. I felt some kind of a envelope or something. I pulled it out, and it was a an old Manila envelope, had a string on it to kinda had a you wrapped the string around a little button that sticks. Right? I remember that. You remember. Yeah. And it was old. I mean, I didn't know how old. And I opened it up, and I pulled out about, oh, six or eight papers in in his handwriting on lined paper.
And it was a paper he had written when he was in school, and the question presented that he was, discussing was, will will the will the government this is the nine this is in 1925 or 1927 along in there. Will the government in America be able to bear the burden of public education? That's rather fascinating. That was in the nineteen twenties. He in other words, this was an upcoming thing, and he saw it coming. And so he was he wrote a paper when he was in school on that subject. And it was handwritten because typewriters were expensive. Nobody really had them. Today, you know, everybody's got a computer in school, but they couldn't even afford typewriters. And if they had one, he wouldn't know how to type anyway.
Although typing was taught, took my grandpa five years to get through high school. He graduated when he was, see, I say, 22 years old. Yeah. And, well, longer than five year. Well, anyway, he graduated when he was 22 because he had to lay out because his father demanded that he work in the tobacco fields, and he did. But then he wanted to go off of bed, and he kept trying to go back to school. He told me when he graduated high school, he went to the high school graduation, and I I went in the same building where I went to school, and that was back in, Wow. In the twenties. And he said the guest speaker, you know, at the commencement, gave a roaring speech about something. I don't know what. He said he didn't remember the speech, but he remembered his his final line was he was trying to encourage them to go do more. You know? Don't just stop your education here.
And he said, well, at the end of it, and he said, whatever you do, don't stop in a place like this. That was his final line. Of course, he didn't intend it to come across that way. It kinda was ambiguous, like, don't don't stop in a place like where he was there speaking. But he he kept trying to go to school, Spitz and Fitz, and I got to thinking he even got a job in this little town as a shoe salesman, selling Florsham shoes. That was back in the '19 you got some of those, Roger?
[00:13:39] Unknown:
I used to have. That's how I started.
[00:13:42] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. He got a job selling Florsham shoes and, and he sold for I mean, he was working in a shoe store, but he sold Florsham shoes by himself just independently for the rest of his life. And everybody around home, they want shoes. They go to Mel. They go to Mhmm. Mel Mel Hudson to get a pair of shoes. They're famous for those wingtips. Oh, he had all that stuff. Yeah. And I I, well, he I I got his worn out shoes, but, getting back to my granddad, so he sold sold shoes. Well, I heard later, of course, the one of the popular figures around where I grew up, maybe it was all over America probably, was, Frank James. Do you remember Frank hearing about Frank James, Roger? You you not Jesse James's brother, was he? Right. That was Jesse's brother. And Okay. Frank and Jesse were all the boys around where I lived where he was the hero. And if you hadn't made the the pilgrimage to Merrimack Caverns, you were nobody. And what I was growing. Well, I mean and Merrimack Caverns, for those of you that, went to the public fool system, never heard of Jesse James and Frank, Merrimack Caverns were the hideout of Jesse James. And it was a it's a cave. It's still there down in the Ozarks.
Of course, Jesse did you know Jesse and Frank robbed banks as far east as Delaware, believe it or not? I mean, they were all over. Minnesota. You know? Mhmm. Oklahoma, Texas. They were Arkansas, they were particular, but they they enjoyed traveling, apparently. Kentucky, they robbed banks everywhere. Mhmm. And, but they did their base operation course was in what they called Little Dixie along the Missouri River and was Mhmm. Right near where Harry Truman was from. Mhmm. And, so dad's or granddad sold shoes. Well, Frank James, when he finally turned his pistols in to the governor of Missouri, said, whatever you do with me, I'm throwing myself at your mercy.
Of course, the governor, that was a big political boom for him to have the have the guns of Frank James. Of course, Jesse had been shot in the back by Bob and Charlie Ford. Do you remember them? How they, just a couple of cowards. You know? They the dirty the dirty little coward that shot mister Howard. We all knew that song where the Wasn't that ain't that where ace, aces and eights come from? Wasn't that the hand he was holding when he got shot? But you're close. That was, Wild Bill Hickok. Oh, okay. Ace. Yeah. I get my outlaws mixed up. So Yeah. This is American history, but you remember you learn all that stuff when you're you're an American kid in our in our day. You just have all these these, sagas in your head. Well, but Jesse and Frank were closer to home. See, Bill well, Bill was from close to home too as was, Wyatt Earp.
He was from close to home. He grew up on Cornfield Farms back in that neck of the woods. Well, north. They were in, down north quite a ways, frankly. That was up near the Quad Cities in Streeter in Quincy, Illinois where they grew up. But, they were, while Bill died in Deadwood, South Dakota, where they say, he violated his own principles and sat at the card table without his back to the wall. Yep. And anybody killed as many people, like, as many men as he did, would be a darn fool to ever not ever sit with your back not to the wall. I mean Yep. Everybody wants a piece of a killer. You know? Yep. That's true. Well, go ahead, Roger. What you I was gonna say I've got an interesting insert here is, my my first wife.
[00:17:42] Unknown:
Her brother was a big outlaw. He was an outlaw fanatic. And and he'd take the the my my my first wife was a twin, fraternal, not ID. Uh-huh. And, when they were young, you would take them for two weeks all out over the West chasing these tombstones and and the graves of these guys.
[00:18:03] Unknown:
Oh, yeah. People go people it becomes hero worship to them. It kinda was. Yeah. Yeah. Well, us as boys, you know, we felt that way about Jesse and Frank. Well, truth is Jesse was a murderer, a very vicious murderer, as a matter of fact. Oh, you know, he's got plenty of good excuse. I get it. I mean, the the union soldiers tried to kill his stepfather, hung him up by his neck and tortured him, then they'd let him down trying to find find, information on another, another have any pardon me?
[00:18:38] Unknown:
Somebody's talking to me. Hold on just a second. Hey, Wahid. Could you please put your mute on?
[00:18:45] Unknown:
Thank you, Wahid. Well, Jesse was a killer.
[00:18:49] Unknown:
Oh, hold it. He ain't got the message yet. Well Can you can you mute him, Paul, please?
[00:18:55] Unknown:
But, but, Jesse, that happened to him when he was a young boy. And, of course, you do that kind of thing to people and their families. They're not gonna forget it, and Jesse never did forget it. And he was against the railroads because they were everybody knew around Missouri and everywhere else in the West, the railroads were controlled by the elite of New England, and they were the ones behind that terrible awful war and driving the fort the North and the war and the Vatican and the the Talmudists were were controlling the leaders in the South, not to mention the fantasies they had about sir Walter. What was that guy's name?
Walter Scott? Yeah. Wrote Ivanhoe, and everybody was reading that book and thought they were all, descendants of the Scottish highlanders. Well, the Scottish highlanders were scoundrels to the nth degree, made made the scoundrels everywhere else in the world look like girl scouts. But that's the kind of foolishness that foments war that should not occur. Well, any rate, Jesse, buddy, when it happens to you, it happens to you. I'm not justifying Jesse's murders, but when we were growing up, so Jesse, Bob and Charlie Ford, the the dirty little cowards that shot mister Howard, and that was the alias he took, after he tried to get out of crime, which was really impossible.
I mean, crime, well, he's robbing banks. Of course, they were controlled by the elite and the and the railroads and the banks. That's why they were many people looked at them as heroes, and there were two newspapers in Missouri, one in Kansas City, and the other one was the Kansas City paper, and the other one was the St. Louis Post Dispatch. And there were editors there that, when when, Jesse when Bob and Charlie killed Jesse, shot him in the back in his own house, having having been having been offered, food and lodging in, Jesse's house.
Well, by the way, Jesse James' father, his real father, who died when he was young, was a founder. One of the founders, they were cofounder of Jewell College. And Jewell College is near Kansas City is, one of this flagship Baptist fundamentalist always was fundamentalist Baptist school, still is, and it's been there for now for
[00:21:19] Unknown:
well over a hundred years. You know? Are they using the Scofield Bible?
[00:21:23] Unknown:
No. They're not that kind of Baptist. They're not good. Thank you. King James only crowd, but been a Christian. His father was Jesse's father was a Baptist preacher. And Jesse's mother and his all of them were fundamentally Baptist, but not fundamentalist bad. Well, no. That's and that's not what I mean to say. Let me get off of that subject. I don't wanna detract. Well, the King James Bible, the King James only crowd that if somebody want to talk about that, I'd talk about that. Roger likes the subject too, but getting back to Jesse. So, Frank Frank, I wouldn't often wondered. My granddad, see, when, Frank was, he got loose, he he just tried to take all sorts of jobs and make a living, and one of them was announcing horse races. And my, yeah, my granddad said that he remembered Frank James coming around and announcing races at Cumberland County and Clark County and, because he was popular, well known, and it drew a crowd if he was gonna announce the race. And that was back in the days, of course, when they didn't have, didn't have, microphones and all that. Well so he Frank did end up down in, I believe, Dallas Fort Worth area, and he was selling shoes just like my granddad. I wondered if my granddad didn't take that job because he thought that well, you know, well, Frank and Jesse were heroes. That's all I'm saying.
Well, the newspapers have built them up in that part of the world that they were heroes. See? That's what happened after Jesse died. Not that it was all true, but they still that was the perception people had. So Frank got a job down in Dallas as an old man selling shoes in a shoe store and some big boisterous this the story goes, big boisterous hotshot businessman, great big fella used to pushing his weight around and telling people off and ambitious. And I don't know whether he had oil money or cattle money or both or what, and he came into the shoe store. And the old man that was helping him was Frank James, but he didn't know who he was. And Frank had a lot of hitches in his get along. He was like Andy Jackson. Andy Jackson, he had so many like they say, he had so many rifle and pistol balls in him. He rattled like a bag of marbles when he walked. I mean, he was he was shot up. The boy you can say what you want about Frank and Jesse James, but they were no strangers to fighting, and they weren't afraid. Nobody called them cowards, and they defended themselves. There's nobody's the the verses we learned, there was never a man with a law in his hand that could take Jesse and Frank alive, and they didn't.
And they resorted to some pretty ugly tactics. The Pinkertons ended up killing Jesse's little sister with a firebomb grenade. They threw in Jesse's mother's house. Oh, they were terrible. Well, of course, Jesse had shot a Pinkerton detective and Allen Pinkerton. Allen Pinkerton's oh, he swore revenge. Pinkerton wasn't a good man. He did start a company that was successful, but he was a nasty SOB. Yes. Vengeful. You know? And he the law didn't mean much to him because he thought he was powerful. You know, he had the contract to protect the president of The United States before there was such a thing as secret service. Mhmm. You all say something, Roger?
[00:24:39] Unknown:
No. I'm just agreeing with you. I'm thinking about the, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid where they chased him all the way down to Bolivia. Oh, that was the Pinkertons. Oh, yeah. Just south just southeast to me, by the way. Yeah. Well, at that time,
[00:24:53] Unknown:
they thought that the American the Americans through the Pinkertons are the ones that invented they were private eyes, but they invented the whole idea of the Secret Service in America. And they were the ones that even I mean, everything. They were everywhere. They they all seen eye was there. They were so big, and they were so wealthy. The all seen eye was their was their symbol. And when you have and they invented the word private eye. Well, they had power to go and they they're the ones that built power to go into other countries looking for men that were wanted. By the way, Roger, it's we don't stop to consider the word outlaw as part of our common law tradition, but it's Yes. It's a well known part of, well known word, but we don't consider what that really means and how it works in our common law tradition.
But what's the difference? I went to listen to my grandson play music not long ago at a little country store in, up, you know, here in India in Indiana. But, anyway, this, this, they asked this old man to get up and play a few tunes, and he told jokes and played some pretty good songs. One of the songs he played was about the man that, took a roadkill of a dog and and made a a stole out of it for his wife and told her it was mink. It looked like mink. It was made out of greyhound hide, but he told the joke, what what's the difference between an outlaw and an in law?
And the answer is an, an outlaw is wanted. And, you know, well, so Frank and Jesse That's pretty good. Yeah. I thought I was there. It just because it's true, so it makes people laugh to varying degrees. But Frank Frank, Jesse was dead. Frank was trying to make a living. He was an old man. He wasn't moving fast enough for this fella in this shoe store. He's selling shoes down in Dallas, Fort Worth area. And this guy got to ride him and calling him names and a crippled old man wanted to send you out here and all that baloney. He said, what's your and and, he this this, younger fella, arrogant man said, don't you know who I am? He was some big businessman in Dallas, Fort Worth. But don't you know who I am? He said, no. Frank said, no. I don't know.
He told him. And he said, well, what's your name? I'll report you to the the management of this place. And he said, well, he said, my name is Frank James. And as the story goes, this fella had to leave because he had to go change his underwear. That's why I say, and you don't judge a book by the cover, and it is true. I had a friend that was a federal prison guard. I was on the other side of the world with him when we were boys, and he was from he's a French a French extraction, and we called him the kid. And, his last name well, I won't say his last name on the air, but it was a French name. And, he lived down well, okay, Roger. Yeah. You're in Louisianan. He lived down around Lake Charles. Oh, boy. That's way down deep in Cajun country. That's way down right at the bottom in the swamp. Yeah. Next to Texas.
Yeah. On that side, but still in the Delta. I understand. Oh, yeah. Well, I mean, we're talking about not just the Delta. Right? Did you know the the Mississippi Delta begins in Southern Illinois? No. I did not know that. And it yeah. And it's fans out. That's just a geological fact. It fans out as a giant fan and covers all of Mississippi and then over into Alabama and then going and covers all Louisiana, and there's no it's just from there, from that point in Southern Illinois, just North of Cairo, south, and it widens to hundreds of miles wide is the Delta. There's nothing probably feeds over into Texas around Beaumont.
[00:28:54] Unknown:
Corpus Christi, I've never known that for sure, but you from what you're saying, I can easily see it does.
[00:29:01] Unknown:
Yeah. That's solid delta mud, that whole area. And the Mississippi River is clear looking at the geology of it. The Mississippi Rivers has wandered all over that wide hundreds of miles wide Delta area and deposited that mud. Yeah. And that the way I get it, there there's not even a a limestone quarry or a rock quarry from, from Cairo, South New Orleans, and they ship all their limestone and rock out of Missouri, oder Ozarks, have for a long time, down the Mississippian barges. Otherwise, they wouldn't have any gravel roads down there. Well That's probably true. This guy was. And he used to do that until the corps of engineers got involved to straight shoot it down. I wouldn't doubt it. Now they think they run everything. Well, he was a prison guard down there in a federal prison when Castro released all the prisoners from his prisons, and they Very narrow boat lift. Do you remember that? Yeah. And all these convicts coming. Well, Americans didn't know what to do with them, so they stuck them all in federal prison until they could have a court hearing and, of course, decide whether to send them back or what they're gonna do.
And, so they're most of them or a lot hundreds of them. I just we're in this prison where this guy was a prison guard. And they took they they they finally figured out if the if the courts ruled against them and sent them back to Cuba that, Castro would just execute them all. So in their minds, it was logical. They say if we get sent back, we're gonna be killed. If we if we stay here, we may live. So they said, we haven't got anything to lose either way. We're gonna live. If we stay here, we're we'll just take over the prison. And they organized themselves over a long period of time, made weapons in the shop there and hid them, knives and and swords and whatnot.
And on a after a long time, at a certain time, on a certain signal, they took over the prison. Now my my friend told me that when they did that, they weren't too bad to get along with, but then again, as it turned out, but they were they didn't know what they were gonna do. They had weapons, and they they overpowered the guards real quick. They filled all the positions in the prison. You know, he said they even had everybody assigned to a certain guard's duty, to a certain counselor's duty, a certain secretary, a warden. They filled all positions in the prison.
They didn't just take it over the and and in a disorganized chaotic way. They took it over in a cosmos way order, but they took everybody prisoner. Well, my friend said he's a little tiny fellow, by the way, a Frenchman and, very, very short. We got that's why we called him the kid. And, they crawled him and this other guard crawled up into the overhead in one of the buildings hoping they wouldn't be found. Oh, they didn't know what was gonna happen. Oh, and so the kid said he was up there and this great big fella up there about six foot five, and, they could hear him banging around trying to get up into the overhead through the ceiling.
And he said this and, well, my friend told me they started he was starting to look for a piece of angle iron or something to defend himself. And this, great big fella was sobbing and crying. He didn't wanna die. Now my friend told me, he said, I like this fella. We've been friends for a long time, and I talked to him. I said, brace up. We gotta do something here. You know, you're not you're not, you don't wanna die without a fight. But he said, isn't this something? I said, I'm just making an observation. I'm not a brave guy. I just knew it was either, be defend myself or die, and I didn't wanna go down without a fight. But this great big fella who could have defended both of us single handedly, I had to spark him up to his duty.
I said, well, that is normal, isn't it often, Gary? He said, yeah. I guess it is. Yeah. Don't judge a book by its cover. And Frank Jane Frank James, really, even in his young age, didn't cut much of a figure. Just look at him. And he looked like a real peaceable. He had that calm looking visage on his face. He didn't look like a killer, but, boy, he'd been in some tough scrapes, and everybody knew it. And this big boisterous fella, right, when he found out he was dealing with Frank James, he instead of pushing around his weight, he found a quick exit, which is probably a smart thing to do. Of course, people in those days were armed often, you know, as they are today too, frankly, by the way. You certainly need to be today.
Yeah. No pun intended with saying frankly. I didn't I didn't aim to say it that way. But, yeah, that's Frank James. That's, what goes on. I don't know what we can talk about, Oh my god. That would be exciting to people here today except to say there's always something in the news. Well And you're you're making sure and keeping up with that. And you say you've even got plans about talking about something tomorrow.
[00:34:11] Unknown:
We do. I've got a interesting thing. I was gonna hold it through today and let the fellow that's put this together come on and tell us about it. It's pretty exciting. So we'll see. I got another, interview that I just booked. Well, I've been working with a guy for a couple of days, and it's a fellow on YouTube. It's got a YouTube channel, so we'll have to watch my language on that interview. And, his channel over there is called sowing prosperity. His name is Logan, which is pretty cool name. I like it. And, he's very interested in this part of the world, so he wants to talk to me about that and stuff. Anyway, that's booked on the last day of the month, the thirty first.
And then there's another, interesting one looming about a week later. We'll talk about it tomorrow. So a little suspense here, Brent, see if I can draw them back in tomorrow. You know? Always leave them clapping. Remember? Annie Oakley.
[00:35:08] Unknown:
Oh, yeah. Always leave them clapping. Now there's a interesting figure, and then not much is said about her. She had a lot of pluck. That's for sure.
[00:35:16] Unknown:
More than what we hear about her just as children. But yeah. Oh, yeah. Well, when I was in high school, we had a very advanced high school in in Anchorage there. Elevated stage and all this kind of stuff. They did a lot of plays, and, I I was in, Annie Get Your Gun. We did Annie Get Your Gun, and I played Thomas Luther Cody Keeler. Oh. And I had about two lines in there, but it's very interesting about her. You know? Mhmm.
[00:35:46] Unknown:
Annie, first time she shot a shot a firearm, it was a 12 gauge shotgun. It went off and broke her nose. That's true story. I've boogered her up a little bit. I mean, it it did ruin her look, so I'll just kinda bent her nose out of shape. I think we got it back. But, pop But she has a lot of veracity for her to come back and master the thing, doesn't she? Well, I was yeah. She was a girl, and, she grew up in Southern Ohio, by the way. And, of course, at that time, everybody in, Midwest, carried head guns, and people loved to eat squirrel and rabbit, if nothing else, and deer. There's always a lot of that around, groundhog, possum, and coon, and that helps, supplement the diet with a lot of protein. And they were out hunting rabbits, I think, and her brothers, and they gave her a shotgun.
She didn't know to be careful. I know the first time I pulled a trigger on a shotgun. If you haven't shot a shotgun, the people that are listening, you you will be shocked at the conventional power of such a little thing. Especially 12 gauge
[00:36:55] Unknown:
or lower or lower. They used to have lower than 12 gauge. Oh, I I had a 20 I had a 20 gauge. Oh, okay. One I shot. No. I don't mean up. I mean, not sixteen twenty. I mean, ten eight four. Oh, yeah. There's 10 gauge and eight gauge. I suppose they still make them. But And then you said that those duck hunters in Southern Louisiana back before they they outlawed this Uh-huh. Would tie one of those big lower gauge shotguns to the front of a P row. And those them duck them duck hunt them duck. The duck would come down there, and they'd use one of those lower odd shotguns, and they'd wipe out, like, 20 or 30 of them in one shot. Oh, yeah. That's called against the law. But yeah. Oh, yeah. It wasn't back then, but, well, they probably still do it. Tell you through. Well, yeah. Every once in a while, they catch them. And, of course, the feds have got treaties with other nations like Canada about That's a Larry Beecraft's,
[00:37:52] Unknown:
he did a wonderful legal memo on that. Oh, yeah. What what it came down to, I I think I know what you're talking about, was the key case, leading case on the subject, and it was had to do with state law versus federal law, which Correct. Yeah. And, It was Arkansas, I think, wouldn't it? Missouri. Okay. Close. Boys and well, they passed law. Missouri said you could shoot this certain kind of duck and hunt it, and they had a season. And there was already a treaty with Canada that we in America wouldn't be shooting these ducks. Migratory bird treaty. Yeah. So the whole thing then wound up in the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Supreme Court took that course. It's a constitutional question because treaties are a constitutional question. Correct. And they're they are, lawfully enforced just like any other law. But here's what they said.
They said when the general government in Washington DC passes a law, that is constitutional, in other words, the constitution has granted them authority to pass that law or treaty, then, the general government in Washington DC has occupied this is the words that the Supreme Court used, and now these are terms of legal art, has occupied the field of that subject of law. And once so that what they said and what they pointed out, which had been pointed out before, the jurisdiction of the general government in Washington DC is limited very much to the express provisions of the authority and the power granted. Our constitution grants them. If it's not expressly granted, then it they don't have that power. And our constitution of The United States has given given to the general government to Washington DC a very limited set of powers, not that many. But caveat.
But within that limited scope of power, the power and the authority of the federal government to legislate and have laws is right up to the edge and plenary. Occupy the field. That means like an army. You are in control of that subject if they're, the federal government is, if the law is constitutional under the authority of the constitution. No no one else is allowed to encroach if they don't want them to. That's the point they're making. And that's a particularly
[00:40:25] Unknown:
interesting example because you got these birds that fly over both countries. And and and and so both countries kinda have a say in it. Everybody wants to protect the wildlife or they should anyway. And states. Go ahead. Well, I was just gonna say, and, it's just an interesting question. And I remember that's one of Larry's, deals with nice legal briefs on his, website over there. Yeah. And,
[00:40:51] Unknown:
when, and states, though, traditionally have been the ones that have passed laws concerning wildlife and hunting seasons and all that, and they still do that. And that is a state law question. But the constitution of The United States has explicitly expressly granted authority to the general government in Washington DC through the executive department ratified by the US Senate to make treaties with other countries. And once they made a treaty about the specific, species of duck or goose or whatever it was, maybe it was geese. Oh, it's both. It was both. It was okay. But once that happens, they take control of that subject if they want to. So that means that the state government and the state law on that subject, once the federal government has occupied that field, their our law and our tradition of of, what we call, the division of power between the state and federal governments, the state government is required to to retreat from the field and allow the feds to have occupation.
[00:41:59] Unknown:
Okay. That's the point.
[00:42:01] Unknown:
Yeah. Admiralty law, same way. Navigable waters. That's you mentioned the corps of engineers. The corps of engineers are US army. Well, the general government through the US army has occupied the field because the constitution gave them authority to do that. That means that the states have no authority with the, on the subject of navigatable waters within and without The United States if the federal government has occupied that field. Go ahead, Robert. I was just gonna say I I lived in Alexandria,
[00:42:32] Unknown:
Louisiana. This is where my father they're England Air Force Base. Uh-huh. Used to be there. Probably still is. They call it Senla, Central Louisiana. Yeah. And you drive down to Baton Rouge, and you go over a bunch of causeways and stuff. Oh, yeah. And at times when they were when the Mississippi River was close to overflowing, they opened the floodgates and flood all those areas. Yeah. Okay. And so sometimes it'd be dry and sometimes it'd be with full full water. You know? So do here's just a question that's come to my mind. I've never thought about it back then. Are those navigable waters too?
[00:43:10] Unknown:
Yes. They if you could if you could put a rowboat on them Yep. They're navigable
[00:43:15] Unknown:
waters. Yeah. A p row. No. P row. I got a correction.
[00:43:18] Unknown:
Oh, wait. Wait. Wait, Roger. Yeah. I gotta I gotta I gotta go through this and get to it. Goodbye, Joe. You gotta go. P o m a o. Yep. Me gotta go row me, p ro down the pipe. Oh, there it is. You don't row them. You poll them. Oh, you got poll the p ro. That's
[00:43:36] Unknown:
Cajun French for a a rowboat. Is that it or what? Well, it's just a little shallow boat. You know? They they because they don't draft a lot of water, and they gotta go in those shallow places. So they don't, they keep the the bottom real low on the silhouette of the boat. But it's I guess you could call it a rowboat with probably with lower sides. Flat flat bottomed, though. Yeah. Flat bottomed boat. Yeah. That's good to know. Somebody's gonna say Somebody's gonna talk about P Rose here. Yep. We got some we got our Louisiana boys online here.
[00:44:09] Unknown:
Hey, Roger. It's Larry. I got a question for Brent.
[00:44:13] Unknown:
Does it have to do with p rose and Probably not. Well, no. Sure what Larry's got. It has to do with the the US constitution.
[00:44:21] Unknown:
Yeah. He's he's back from vacation. So he's full of he he he's full of curiosity. Go ahead, Lurt.
[00:44:31] Unknown:
Yeah. So the it it there's this thing, this teaching going around the patriot community, and it's been going around for years that the, US Constitution is not our constitution, that our constitution is the 1787, the 1789 constitution, and one of the one of the reasons they say that is because that constitution back in the seventeen hundreds said that it's the constitution for The United States Of America, and then they changed it later on, I think, in the eighteen hundreds, and they said this is the constitution of The United States.
Like, there was on all of that I think all of that information.
[00:45:12] Unknown:
I my suspicion is that was changed right after the civil war, but I'd like to hear Brent weigh in on this. Well, if somebody Yeah. So it's the prison constitution,
[00:45:20] Unknown:
our constitution still.
[00:45:23] Unknown:
Well, if somebody could show me some credible evidence on that point, I'd probably entertain it. But when you hear things like that, and there's a lot of it out there as you know, I just don't see any credible evidence to most of it. And and it comes down to, for example, is there cred oh, here's one of them. Is there credible evidence that the income tax amendment to the constitution was never properly ratified? And the answer is yes. Overwhelmingly. Yeah. That's easy. That one's easy. Overwhelming. And there were two men, Roger and I knew couple of the two men. Roger knew I knew one of them. Roger knew the maybe both of them. I don't know. But it was I've met I've met both of them, Red Beckman and Bill Benson. Okay. You met Bill Benson. I've never met him, but Red, I knew. They took time to go to every state, get in the archives, pull the paperwork out, and it's abundantly apparent. Yeah. So they've compiled it all in a book. You can still get the book probably. It's a big book.
Just proving conclusively that it was not properly ratified. In other words, due process wasn't followed. Is that true? Yes. That's true. Yes. It is. Has been it was proven in court, by the way, Larry. Yeah. It's proven in court, but the courts in our common law country are independent, and they've decided not to uphold that point of view. Well, we So here we are. Here we are. The story. They Bill Benson worked for the Illinois Department of Revenue, had a career.
[00:46:49] Unknown:
Right. Saw the saw the foolishness from the inside. When he got out, he hooked up with Red Beckman, one of the patriarchs of our movement folks, Red Beckman. Many of you don't even know who he was. Founded FEDIA also. And, they had a benefactor, and the benefactor paid for the whole exercise. They went to every state. There was a state in the union in 1916, I believe, when it was supposedly ratified. They went down in the archives. They got certified and notarized copies from every state. And Bill Benson wrote a book called the two, volume one and two, the law that never was. And as that gone out into the patriot community, somebody took it to court, and the lower court ruled in their favor.
Well, obviously, it was immediately appealed, and the appellate court overturned the lower decision. And then the appellate court goes, this is an illegal question. It's a political question. And so now we got the hot potato going back. No. It's not a political question. It's a legal question. No. It's a political. So that's been going on ever since.
[00:47:58] Unknown:
Yep. That's kinda what it is. Yeah. And that's our common law tradition. Who had which branch of government see, here's the point. Again, we make it, and it it serves us well. I'm not upset by any of this. Which branch of government has the final word or three branches of government? And then the general government, the national government, some people might say, who has the final word on what the law is? And people say, oh, the Supreme Court. Well, no. That's not true. Neither does the president, neither does the legislative branch, the Congress of the United States. The fact is in our common law tradition of law and government, religion law and government, I might add, none of those three branches has the final word on on what the law is.
They're, they're the Supreme Court delivers its opinion, but if the other two branches don't wanna follow that opinion, they don't.
[00:48:47] Unknown:
That's where it works in a in a law country. And we're talking about the sixteenth amendment. Well, guess what else? The seventeenth amendment, which was Oh, they're all. Yeah. Certified that later that year that severed states' rights into congress with senator appointment. That is null and void too. That was not properly ratified. The sixteenth amendment was not properly ratified. And the son of a bitch secretary of state that got up there and lied in front of the whole world, his name was Philander Knox.
Well, now great first name, a Philander.
[00:49:22] Unknown:
But, Roger, now I don't wanna join you calling his mother a son of a bitch, and I'll tell you why. I I he probably was rotten as a day as long, but I He sold the country down the damn river. I don't wanna include his mother because I don't know, but I understand your settlements. Send them. I'm sorry to missus Knox if I cast any aspersions. Oh, man. Don't be, yeah, don't be, running down anybody's mother. We gotta be careful here, but I know you didn't think of it that way. But sometimes I do. But back to I'll I mean, I'd insult a man or even I'd do a lot of things to a man who was a scoundrel if I could get away with it, but I don't wanna run down his mother if I don't have to. But here's the I don't think I have to. But here's the the the overarching principle in all of this.
We as Americans in our common law country, if we're gonna have a common law country, we must be absolutely comfortable and happy with the uncertainty of the government never come into a solid conclusion the way we want them to or maybe not enough. There is no centralized power in our common law country. That's the whole point. The rest of the world doesn't understand how we can have any order at all, but we do. Why? Because we distribute the power and the authority and the decision making to such a degree we don't allow absolute authority in government anywhere. I hope you see that. And that comes down to the King James controversy as well. As an example, to to illustrate this, the King Jamers, Roger, here's what they want.
They they are desperate to have absolute certainty so much so that they will just be stupid about it and say the King James Bible is final. God's God intended it that way, and every word in there, it is is, final final even beyond the Greek of the old, manuscripts of the New Testament and the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament. And even though the translators
[00:51:24] Unknown:
wrote a forward that said they're over I forget how many words intentionally mistranslated.
[00:51:30] Unknown:
But translators said that, and those people still believe that. But see, here's the deal, Rod that's right, Roger. But here's the deal to talk more about the overarching first principle. And we should approach all of these things we're discussing by these by a few overarching first principles. And the overarching first principle is God has given to us evidence. He has not made the decision for us, but he has given us sufficient evidence, a matter of fact, overwhelmingly sufficient evidence of that is admissible of what the truth is, and we must decide. But there is always with evidence, always with evidence, always a little bit of uncertainty someplace.
In the manuscripts, in the in our courts, the experts in government disagree. The nine justices on the Supreme Court, they even disagree. They're supposed to know. If they can't agree, well, then why is it I can't agree? As a matter of fact, our common law tradition says where the experts can't agree, I'm free for sure to make a decision. And frankly, friends, experts never agree. The higher you get with the experts and the bigger the questions that are more important, the less they agree. Brent, can I can I throw something right in here? They can't even agree on what income is. That's right, Roger. So what is that? That leaves it up to the individual American to make his choice. And even in our common law tradition and even in our military services, every private buck soldier, every seaman deuce, every admiral, every general takes the same oath to obey lawful orders, not to obey orders like, the Nazi Germany you swore to absolute loyalty to the death and obey the orders of a of a paper hanger from Bavaria.
You know, some of the men that Oh, I see. Yeah. A man. He was a corporal in the army. You swear absolute. Well, that's that's stupidity at its best. There is no man. I don't care how, worthy you might think he is, but to whom we are to give that kind of loyalty, including our president of The United States, Donald j Trump. The thing that will destroy a country, ultimately, is hero worship. Yep. Hero worship. Yeah. We we respect the president of The United States. We've got one that looks to me like he's right headed on a lot of things. Of course, I can always find fault, and I know you are too. But dadgum it
[00:54:10] Unknown:
He's under he's under siege right now.
[00:54:13] Unknown:
Well, the point is, yes. He is under there's no room for hero worship in among mortals.
[00:54:21] Unknown:
Unfortunately, Trump's opinion rating is one point above the lowest it's ever been just in the last ten ten days, two weeks, unfortunately. Somebody was trying to say there hey, Roger there a minute ago. Who was that?
[00:54:33] Unknown:
Yeah, Roger. Thank you. That's Samuel. My understanding is when the courts say something is political, that's because there's an individual choice. And, of course, you volunteer to pay your taxes. Right?
[00:54:52] Unknown:
Yeah.
[00:54:54] Unknown:
Yeah. They got it loaded where they choice. On the back end. Fourteenth amendment.
[00:54:58] Unknown:
Right. They got it loaded on the back end where they can come do all this stuff you don't understand the process you're in, but go ahead.
[00:55:06] Unknown:
That was it. I'm done. Okay. Well, you volunteered It's a choice.
[00:55:11] Unknown:
You volunteered to pay your taxes like you volunteered to stop at a stop sign. Yeah. You volunteered to pay your taxes like you volunteered to keep within the speed limit. Just keep those analogies in mind, but if you don't volunteer, force may be used against you. That's the reality, isn't
[00:55:29] Unknown:
it? Yes.
[00:55:30] Unknown:
I mean, you're not gonna get away from that. Well, if you have a choice, Brent, do you have a choice to be a fourteenth amendment citizen or not?
[00:55:36] Unknown:
No. You don't. No. You don't. No. You are not a fourteenth amendment citizen. You have a choice of whether or not you wanna proclaim it, and that's what some of you have done. Well But but but no. You are what god says you are. You are what the constitution of The United States says you are, and you are not what the fourteenth amendment says you are. And that's pretty easy.
[00:56:01] Unknown:
Man. But remember, when you what god says I am.
[00:56:05] Unknown:
Well, yeah. Well, if the common law tradition is consonant with the Bible, you're what God says you are. Yes. But it's important that you it is important to know what God says you are, and the Bible spends a whole lot time more explaining who you are than it does telling you what to do. A lot. Because you'll never have the gumption to do what God tells you to do unless you have full understanding of who you are.
[00:56:30] Unknown:
That's one of the That Sun Tzu stuff.
[00:56:32] Unknown:
The the Bible Romans is the unpacking, the ultimate unpacking of the gospel of God. It says so right in the beginning. He calls it the great gospel of God. Everything that God will allow you to know, it's in there. And it most all of the book, three quarters of the book is spent trying to explain to the reader and the hearer who he is. No commandments given. Great great detail. Answers every question that the mind of man can conceive. The ultimate questions of human existence. Everything from predestination and election to, the mysteries of who God is and where he is. It's all there and why he does what he does.
And if we ever get comfortable with what God wants us to know and major on that and know it well, occupy that field as far as he allows us to do so. And then the uncertainty in our minds, the things that are higher that only God, only God is privy to, to leave that alone and quit trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pen as many theologians in the middle ages majored on trying to figure silly stuff like that out. Life is practical. It doesn't last long. We got things to do. We need to quit screwing around. I'm not criticizing you, Larry. But I'm just saying in general, all of us need to quit screwing around with questions that don't matter. What matters is a King James Bible. And then devote yourself to that is the same thing as devoting yourself to the to the, the Latin Vulgate and saying that's fine. Right. Well, that's Rome trying to give to people what they crave, finality. I wanna know. Somebody tell me. Well, God says no. You gotta figure that one out on the basis of the evidence I give you personally. That's what you gotta do. Oh, nobody wants that responsibility.
We want some expert to tell us. Get get a priest to tell me. Get the pope to tell me. Get my preacher to tell me. The King James preacher. Get the governor to tell me, the Supreme Court. No. No. No. You are to look at the evidence as a member as it were of the jury. Right. You gotta come to your own conclusion, and it's gonna be yours. And God made it that way, and you better get at it and decide to grow up and smell the coffee, put on your big boy britches, and make the ultimate decisions of life. But that's a lifelong process. Just get at it. That's my that's my admonition to myself and everyone listening, and I'm trying to do that. God help me. I hope I continue.
It's a matter of taking responsibility for your own decisions, and the government, our government doesn't even allow itself. Our law doesn't allow itself to do that. There is no finality in a common law country, except the finality that you choose to adhere to. And it doesn't people say, well, the Supreme Court said this. Well, that doesn't mean it's right, does it, when you've got people on the head, especially up there that don't even know the difference between a man and a woman. You don't even know a woman, don't even know what a woman is. No. They're gonna tell me, about the ultimate questions of human existence. No. I'm not trusting them. Are you trusting them? Roger, back to you. Well, I'm trying to get a little put in here and promote something. We talked quite a bit last week about pastor Pete Peters.
[00:59:56] Unknown:
Uh-huh.
[00:59:57] Unknown:
He one of the things I remember was a series that he did at least four, maybe six hours called the King James only version. Uh-huh. Now you can go to his website if this is up your alley. You can go to his website, scriptures for America, and you can order those, that tape series. I don't know what they charge or anything else. I just remember it. And right before he started that series, there was a biographer on there who had done several different biographies, but the one they were talking about particularly to lead into this series was he did one on King James.
And that's where I found out all these these little tidbits I know about. You know, the Scotsman called him Shami Jamie because he was a homosexual. And when his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, was, had her head cut off right there in public, I don't know if I don't think they drew and quartered her, but they cut her head off. Right, Brent?
[01:00:57] Unknown:
Yo. Yeah. They sure did. Yeah. They sure did. They cut her head off. Well, after they decapitated
[01:01:04] Unknown:
her, he was a young man, He went into a room for three days. He didn't come out. He didn't eat. He didn't speak with anybody. He didn't drink anything. And when he came out after three days, he never spoke about the incident the rest of his life. Oh, when did that? I wish I could remember the guy's name that had all this information. But if you ask the folks, if you wanna go after this and you ask the folks at Scriptures for America, I'll just bet you they know.
[01:01:33] Unknown:
So comment, Brent. Oh, yeah. You can find that sir I I found that series, just on the Internet, Rogers, out there somewhere. You don't Oh, is it? Okay. Yes. But, you know, when, when the axeman took off her head, she had a wig on. Nobody knew it. Correct. And the custom was in those days, if the when the axeman cuts your head off, the henchman, they called him, and he was supposed to reach down, grab the head by the hair, hold it up in front of the crowd, and say, thus, something, is the fate of traitors or god save the king or something like that. Well, he reached down to pick up her head, grabbed her by the hair, and gave it a jerk to hold it up, and all that came was the hair because it was a it was a rug. You know? It was a rug she'd put on her head or for some reason. And, the head then went rolling across the platform.
Now this is the testimony I read for what it's worth. It was a gruesome sight is what I'm saying. But king whether king let's say, King James was a homosexual, King James was under whatever. That's bad. Right. But that's not the driving point with me. The driving point with me is that, it's just silly to say that some translation of the Bible is final when you've got their the Bible in the original tongues. And that's what Rome does. The original tongues are not final to them. The the, the the, Latin Vulgate is final. And they it's been final ever since Jerome translated it about April, and they wanted a final version. So everybody was on the same page.
Well, that that's just silly. What becomes but it's not that the Vulgate is is useless. It's not that the King James Bible is useless. As I often say, it is without question. Hands down, people agree to study it even, and you don't have to study this to know it's the most beautiful piece of English literature ever produced, including Shakespeare as good as Shakespeare is. But by the way, written, Shakespeare lived about the same time. That was the zenith. When the King James Bible was translated, that was the absolute pinnacle and zenith of the of the the, the beauty of the Anglo Saxon tongue. And I'm I'm not talking, efficiency.
I'm talking beauty,
[01:03:51] Unknown:
and that's what it was. It's beautiful. Yeah. And I would reiterate, he pastor Peters covers it in that series. The translators, and there's a number of them, I guess. He he supervised that translation every
[01:04:05] Unknown:
day. Oh, he fashioned himself. King James fashioned himself a scholar of equal bill ability and understanding with the translators. There were 54 of them. Ultimately, 54 translators of the King James Bible. And in order to be on the translation team, each translator had to swear that he upheld the doctrine of divine right of kings. The divine right of kings, which meant that the king answers to no one on earth, period. Right. He is God on earth. And that those 54 translators
[01:04:40] Unknown:
put a preface in the Bible. I just moved. Hold on, Bruce. They put a preface in the Bible that over if I remember right, they said there were over 500 words in there that were mistranslated.
[01:04:52] Unknown:
Well, they didn't say mistranslated, but you're close. But let me see if I can soften that a little. They said there's a lot we don't know. They said that in the preface that's of the sixteen eleven version. There's a lot we don't know, and we're satisfied that there'll be a lot of improvement improvements be made. You know, they were humble, but they didn't say they did made mistakes on purpose. But they, said there were things that they did did do according to the orders of King James that as I like to point out, they were to always prefer prefer elegance over accuracy.
Mhmm. Now that see, you get to understand too the times, there are different phases of of what in the English speaking world in the English speaking world, Blaine, they're invented Bible translation. When Wycliffe had translated the Bible for the first time into a native tongue out of the Latin Vulgate, he didn't have the any manuscripts of the original tongues. When he did that, he it'd never been tried before, and Wycliffe was without question unassailable in his knowledge. Nobody could really compete with him in all of Europe. But when he did that, he didn't know how to do it. So he just took the Latin words word for word in order of Latin and put an English word in there. That's what he did. So when people read it, a lot of people said, well, this is nothing but a Latin Latin Bible with with English words. You know?
And it was. And then that was that was the way it started. And then it was wasn't a 100 years, but, let's see, in the 15 hundreds, you know, well, over a 100 about a 150 or more. Then Tyndale got ahold of the transcripts or the manuscripts of their in the original tones, not many. Not many, and I've been met very few as a matter of fact. Just a handful. And, he really did a bang up job. 80% of the King James Bible is not the translators. In other words, the King James Bible is not even a translation, a raw translation from the original tongues. What it is is a reworking of Tyndale's translation.
Mhmm. Tyndale's translation, 80% at least, if not more, just the phrases of William Tyndale, and it was tested. The King James men tested it against the Latin Vulgate and the six, half a dozen, just half a dozen, manuscripts they had of the New Testament. They had stuff of the Old Testament that was older, but it was more extensive. But they only had half a dozen manuscripts, and none of them of those manuscripts were ancient. They were pretty pretty recent, in in, in the big scheme of things. Well, now we don't have six a half a dozen, six. We have closer to 6,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, and some of them are very close to the first century. We have one one papyri fragment, by all best estimates is around 100 AD, and it's of the book of of, John, the gospel of John, which would and John wrote very late in the first century.
He lived very long too, by the way, almost a 100 or right there right thereabouts. So that's going back to the very beginning. As one fellow said, the apostolic ink was hardly dry. I've often said that particular, piece of fragment going back about a 100 AD. Some say more, some say less. But that particular fragment, who knows? It could be the original fragment. Unlikely. I know. But it could be. I'm just go saying it goes way back there and, the the all of the manuscripts we have are evidence and good evidence. And under our common law rules of evidence, they are, we are to seek the best evidence.
The Bible seems to, be in in, sync with the common law rule of evidence called the best evidence rule, that we apply to ancient documents to determine which ones we should be using as evidence. Well, that's what we do with the manuscripts. First of all, we say, well, do we have manuscripts of the original tongues, Koine Greek, the New Testament, Hebrew, and then to a to a lesser degree, we find some some of the new Old Testaments written in Aramaic, some pericopes, not books, but just sections. Usually, the decrees of the Babylonian kings are written in the original tongue in which those those decrees were written, and there's just a few of them, book of Daniel, the book of Esther, book of Nehemiah, where where they're talking about the Babylonian emperor.
But we have Hebrew, Aramaic, and and Greek, the New Testament. That's the original times, though those under the best evidence rules ought to take precedence. We don't want somebody's version to take precedence because when you translate from your original tongues, and there are translations from the original tongues that are available to us in English when you do that, you you can't get every every concept in there. You can get it you can get a lot, but there's always something that is lost or gained in a translation. Always.
Without exception, my friends, there is no such thing of just taking a Greek or Hebrew word and saying, okay. Here's the English word word that exactly fits. That that never happens ever. Mhmm. But there are do that in Spanish. Can't do that in Spanish to English either. Well, you know that just trying to learn languages as anybody would. Yeah. Well but there are words that we can put in there that clearly get the concept of the word across, and give it a I like to say in in English, the good translations give us those of us to remember black and white television, give us a clear, crisp, black and white picture of everything the author is saying.
And if you wanna add color to that picture, there are some translations that will give you that, but they won't read quite as smoothly. I was gonna say Bible translated translation in the beginning started with Wycliffe, just wooden. Word for word, all out of order because Latin is not always in their order of English. And then the idea by the time we get to the King James, the idea is elegance because that was the age of elegant elegance. That's what was popular. Shakespeare did what was popular. He wrote in with those kinds of phrases. By the way, Shakespeare never quoted the King James Bible, and he I think I write out about a 300 times. About 300 times Shakespeare includes Bible quotes in his writings.
But he doesn't quote the King James. He quotes the Geneva Bible. Ah. And the Geneva Bible is not quite as elegant and beautiful, but it's more accurate. That was it. More of the idea with the the, Geneva Bible was accuracy, but still beauty was important. And when you read it and every Bible translation after the King James until 1881, every translation in English. So that was 1611 to 1881. That's a lot of centuries. But during that time during that time, every English translation was a reworking of the King James. It was not a translation from the original tongues. Yeah. The 1881 translation is the official government funded and authorized translation of the Anglican church, just like the King James translation, is a government project of King James, government funded and government promoted. What does that tell you? Well, it tells you that everything about it was to promote government power. That Absolutely. Don't go be blind to this, friend. Uh-huh. You know, it's
[01:12:48] Unknown:
go ahead, Roger. I've had Geneva Bible, I think, was the first one with footnotes too, wouldn't it? It was the first Bible
[01:12:55] Unknown:
translation with footnotes, the first Bible translation, the, the verses. That's where the verses we have in all of our Bibles all over the world now came from that. The verses that were that were divided up in there, the chapter divisions of our English Bibles were provided by the drafter of Magna Carta, by the way, way back in Langton. At around yeah. Around, the December. Langton. But it's all very much a Christian endeavor and a common law endeavor. You cannot separate those two, by the way, in our world. It's not possible. The common law or common law tradition in the Bible. Well, so by the time you get past 1881, then the culture of Bible translation, and there were a plethora of English translations, it was it went from woodenness and which was shooting for accuracy, then elegance with the King James and all that time up through 1881, and then came the age of accuracy Accuracy.
And that pinnacle in 1971 with the new American standard Bible. Mhmm. That that particular translation, by the way, on all have all the popular translations, and I'm not gonna include my translation because it's not popular. But of all the well known translations, that is the most accurate. And I'm not gonna say it's more accurate than mine. I I believe mine is more accurate. But mine is neither eloquent eloquent or eloquence means readability, by the way. See, that's the beauty of the King James Bible. It's beautiful and it reads well and it's best. The phrases are balanced and eloquent. But by the time we get to the well, the American standard of nineteen o one where the that was done by the the tran American translators who were on the 1881 edition.
And when they got done, there were American and British translators. When they got done with that, the American translators agreed to sign, an agreement that they would not translate the Bible into American English for seven or fourteen years. I forget what well, let's see. '18 no longer than that. '18 they were working on it all that time, but they didn't they didn't make publish it until nineteen o one according to their contractual agreement. So they did that. Mhmm. And that was accuracy. And that accuracy just got better and better and better until the new American standard. Now the old American standard of nineteen o one was not completely from the original manuscripts. It was really also reworking of that of the King James version.
The new American standard, the word new was intended to signal that this is not from any other translation. This is just raw straight from the original tongues. And it is. And it is accurate and readable, but it's not eloquent. Okay. Then we we leave that, then we that was the pinnacle. Then after that, people got to talking about readability. And they said the importance here is to get the point across. We don't care how accurate it is just so we get the general idea across and people enjoy reading it. Mhmm. So we had the paraphrase that came out called, which isn't a translation at all, called the, the living bible came out in the nineteen sixties at the promotion of Billy Graham.
He was in a in a sick bed back in the early sixties, and somebody gave him a copy of the book of the of the living the living Bible, the book of the New Testament. And he said, we gotta hand this out of all of our crusades. And all of a sudden, the guy who did that, he it's not a translation. He was just paraphrasing it from the King James Bible for his he had 10 children, and he they they didn't understand the phraseology of the King James, so he paraphrased it and made it easy. And that became a Bible. Now the age of readability comes, then that trumps accuracy.
Remember, King James gave orders to his 54 translators. When it comes to a decision between accuracy and elegance, you must choose elegance because he said, we have to make it the phrase is memorable in the minds of men to overcome the influence of the Geneva Bible, which was accurate as well was accurate. But we get the new American standard. By the way, the pilgrims wouldn't carry the King James to America. They hated it because it represented the divine right of kings contrary to the common law tradition, So they wouldn't carry it, and they didn't. They hated that Bible.
Well, so with government promotion of government money, it became popular. That's how that happened and overcame the Geneva Bible. Who's ever even heard of the Geneva Bible? A monopoly. See, that's a monopoly. Monopolies can't exist without government power and money, government enforcement, and that's what the King James Bible is. It was a monopoly Bible in the English speaking world made popular by government money and power. And not to say that God hasn't used it and not to say that it isn't fun to read and I grew up on it. I get all that. But it's important to understand when you look at a translation of of the Bible, it has a purpose. Every translation has a specific purpose. If you know what that purpose is, then when you read it, you can deal with it a little better. That's all I'm saying. Yeah. New American Standard came out, then the new one more point, then the new international version was all about readability.
Accuracy didn't matter. It is not a translation, and that's the first English bible translate first bible in English that has trumped the sales of the King James Bible, the first one. Back to you, Roger.
[01:18:33] Unknown:
Bruce, was trying to get in about ten or fifteen minutes ago. Bruce, what do you got?
[01:18:41] Unknown:
Well, Brent, you hit the nail on the head. I'll tell you. All my life, the word predestination has always been in my mind. The things I do as I grow up and do things, I find that predestination guided me into that, and I accepted it. And it's God's will. And can you go further with predestination, Papa? It is bringing everybody together as we are today.
[01:19:10] Unknown:
I think I understood what your question was a little bit garbled, but did you ask me to make a comment on it?
[01:19:18] Unknown:
Yeah. It's how it brings us together. We we were predented. We we are anyway, predestination to be here. All of us are. God wanted us to be here to get this information with you and Roger and everybody else is giving working their predestination. They don't know it maybe, but I realize it. It's guided me all the way my whole life.
[01:19:47] Unknown:
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Well, anybody whose brain works will wrestle with that question at some point. And the reason men all men, I say, like, they wrestle with it. They see what the Bible says. The Bible clearly teaches it clearly. It's not even like it's ambiguous, and it said so many times in so many ways that it's overwhelming. And don't forget the people that founded America, that was their central doctrine, predestination, the Puritans. That was all that is still a central doctrine of the Presbyterians that came to America. That's the central doctrine of the Dutch reformed groups that came to America. Now the call them Christian reformed and other things. That's their central doctrine. The people, James Madison. James Madison educated with the ambition of being a clergyman. That was the central doctrine of the place where he went to school, Princeton College. It it remained the central doctrine there until the nineteen twenties. Predestination is the central doctrine to the Bible. Without it, everything in the Bible becomes real utterly meaningless.
If God is not the God that predestines all that happens into total sovereignty, then he's not worthy of our worship. That's what they said. I'll just quote them. You wanna go look? You can look at that. I can see. I'm not stupid. I just read the Bible. I study it. I I can just give you my personal testimony. There is no question. The Bible teaches it and it shouts it on every page, this absolute and utter sovereignty of God. But then people wrestle with it and they say this, well, wait a minute. I I it makes sense, but it's not logical. And then they try to go through it logically and try to understand. Uh-oh.
And the Bible says and God says, once I speak, that's the end of it. The truth of the matter, the fact of the matter is our common law tradition, not logic. There's a lot of things I know in life to be absolutely fact that I cannot explain. And there's a lot of things that you know that you can't explain either, but they are a fact. I used I like to use the example of gravity. It's a fact. Mhmm. I've I've read a lot about gravity. I had I've read the theories about gravity. There isn't anybody I've ever read that knows how it happens. They don't have any idea. No. And there isn't, but they know it's true, and we deal with life on the basis of law. It is just true. That's the way it is. It's not changing. Yeah. Can God suspend the laws of gravity? Absolutely. And he did so when he made the ax head float in the old testament, float on water, an iron axe head. You can go read about it in the prophets. And that's just one little example where he suspended the law of gravity.
But there are a lot of things we know. Our common law tradition is a tradition of fact. It's not a tradition of logic. The law of the city tradition, scholasticism is another name for it. Humanism is another name for it. It it it says that we can we can find truth with pure logic, and that's not true. That's so that's a silly, utterly silly statement. Anybody that's really considered it, the logic will not get you to the truth by itself. That's not possible. Logics a tool like dynamite, like nuclear power, like fire, very dangerous by the way, very dangerous tool and easy to misuse, but it is a tool that can be used, right? It's a creation of God, but fact is the foundation of everything. Well, what, how do we know what fact is?
Evidence. Evidence. Talking a while ago about God creates always he gives us the evidence. We got four gospels. Example, case in point. Four gospel records, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They're all biography about the same man, Jesus Christ. They are all constitute a record of evidence and record of evidence about him. And the question before the jury, if you read those is, who is Jesus Christ and what did he do? Well, those four gospel records record three of them we call synoptic because they pretty much follow the same pattern of facts about what Jesus Christ did, but none of them tell this give the same evidence about this about the fact. They give different evidence about the fact.
And we, as members of the jury, as it were, are to look at those three testimonies or four and with John before testimonies. He was the cleanup testimony, a trial lawyer would say. He's the final testimony. But you look at all the testimonies, one, two, three, four, and you say, okay. This man said this, this man said this, that, this and that. But this man said that there were two angels at the grave of Jesus Christ, and the other gospel said there was one or he saw one. Well, how what do you do with that? Well, just it's evidence. It's testimony. Could it be that one witness just wanted to reference one? Could it be that one one of the witnesses just saw one and the other one saw two? Did it could it be that one of witnesses want to reference just one because he was making a particular point about that one? Well, that's the way it is in court.
You take the witnesses, the sworn testimonies, you put them together, and you say, okay. What's the truth here? Now I've never seen anything in the gospel records that is contradictory. That's I'm not saying that. I'm just saying these are four testimonies. And throughout the history of Christianity, we've called, for example, those four books, the four testimonies of the evangelists. Four evangelists, plural. And that's what they are. And all of the Bible, by the way, is a written record of God's testimony. He says so. And we can see it just looking at it. Isaiah said all the Bible is is either is either testimony, that means affidavit, written records, evidence, or it is law. And even the parts that are law are evidence of what the law is, the record that God has provided of what he said. So in all of this, it's all evidence.
And God wants us to and God doesn't want to deal want us to deal with life on anything but sufficient evidence. And that's what the Bible is. That's the ultimate evidence. By the way, words are the ultimate evidence always even in the courtroom, and they are here with the Bible as well. There was a professor from Harvard. Yeah. Because somebody's gonna say something. Go ahead.
[01:26:16] Unknown:
Yeah, Brent. This is Bob. I had, I don't gosh. Two, three years ago, you brought forward the fact. And if I'm touching on something that you've already mentioned in this broadcast, I apologize. I've been in and out a little bit, but Uh-huh. It was kind of a revelation to me when you mentioned the fact that it was so bloody obvious when you said it that the word evidence contains v I d as in video, something seen. And I'm like, well, duh. No. That kinda opened my eyes to the concept of evidence. Yeah. And, just thought that was a nice little aside. Something I was curious about. I grew up in the Presbyterian church, and I was gifted a Bible by the church with seven or 10 of my classmates as a budding first grade reader, and it was the revised standard version.
Uh-huh. And that's what I grew up reading. Of course, I was very familiar with the the King James because it was very, very common and Uh-huh. Obviously, much read, but they were they, the the church I attended, gave out the revised standard version. I don't know. Did you cover that here just in the last little history of different come, different translations? Or I did. A little Versions of the Bible? I did a little, but I I I it bears Shane a little more. I must have missed that. I had another call I was briefly on, and I may have missed that. Could you reiterate that and maybe expand on it? It seemed to be quite common in my youth, and I it's kinda seemed to have fallen away. I don't know how accurate it was or what it was derived from. I'm just curious what you're Well, the revised stand thanks. No. It's worth talking about. No question. The revised standard version
[01:27:58] Unknown:
was an in American update of the American standard version of nineteen o one. The American Standard Version was an American, modification of the old revised version of 1881, which was funded and intended to supplant the King James Bible by the official proclamation of the of the king of at that time, Queen of England Queen Vic. And the they the churchmen in England had convinced her, it's about time we revised, gave gave a new official translation because the King James, obviously, uses words that we don't use anymore. And on and on they went, she she authorized it, and so they did it. Then the the on that team, they wanted to make it, prevalent throughout the English speaking world, so a lot of men on that team were Americans.
But they signed an agreement saying, we're not gonna do an American publish American translation, revising this for x number of years to give time for this revised translation, the new official Bible of the Anglican church, give it time to get some traction. So they did that. Then in nineteen o one, they, published what they believed was the American revision of the King James Bible called the American, American, Standard Version of nineteen o one. Well, then in 1952, the revised standard version of 1952 came out. This is a fascinating story behind all these. Now here's what happened with the '52 version. McCarthyism was raging at that time, as you know. And communist the communist scare was over the top all through the fifties and sixties, but it really got going back then. And, it got so bad, the revised standard translation did this, and this is what really upset a lot of people.
There's a verse in in Isaiah that says that it was a prophecy hundreds of years before it happened that a virgin shall conceive. A virgin shall conceive, Isaiah said. Well, of course, that really happened. We have some evidence and we've actually done the evidence and the evidence says of the manuscripts overwhelmed. But coming back,
[01:30:23] Unknown:
there's noise out there for somebody. Yeah. Bob, can you hit your mute? There you go. Thank you. Okay. I don't I don't think it's me in this case. It would come across me. It it was. Yeah. I just thought it was you. So sorry. Oh, Bob knows. Bob's in the field running machinery, so we think, well, maybe that's Bob. You know? So but, anyway Well, a lot of times, I gotta remember to turn my businessman radio down because my crew starts talking right in the middle of something. I don't even think about it. Okay. It's quite distracting.
[01:30:51] Unknown:
Well, we we enjoy, of course, having the opportunity to talk to people personally this way, but it comes with these glitches. But we're happy about it as long as people try to conform best they can. But the nineteen fifty two version came out, and it the scare was so strong about things like that during the communist, purge here in America. And the revised, the revised standard version of 1952 translated young virgin instead of or, young maiden or maiden instead of instead of virgin. Now the word here's the people just rejected that revised standard version out of hand over that over that rendition. That rendition wasn't wrong, friends. But the funny thing about it was the does the word mean virgin, or does it mean young maiden? Well, stop and consider just a minute.
The word maiden means virgin. Virgin. Virgin is a Latin word made popular by the church of Rome, of course, because that the Latin Bible is their official Bible. But the word maiden is the English way to say virgin. So it really shouldn't have upset anybody, but it did. So much so that the armed forces commander in Germany, there were a lot of American soldiers there at that time, forbade the use of the English of the, revised standard version by the troops that were in Germany. My lord. That's how serious people got about this. But then their minds, the word alma, the Greek or the Hebrew word of Isaiah is alma.
And people say, well, it could be translated maiden. Well, of course, it could. That's the English way of saying virgin. We've forgotten that now. A young maiden. You've heard a maiden in distress. Well, that's a virgin. But the the, Latin word has supplanted the the English word. In my translation of the Bible, by the way, I don't use the word virgin virgin anywhere. I use the word maiden because I have a policy of trying to get rid of all these Latin words. And I want to I wanna revise Well, the most are better. A lot better.
[01:32:58] Unknown:
Go ahead. The most common thing that comes to my mind when you think of the word maiden is talking about a woman's maiden name, assuming, you know, that after you get married, you're probably not a maiden anymore. I mean, that's kind of assumed. Yeah. Yeah. And, also, it would be Anyway should be assumed.
[01:33:15] Unknown:
This isn't assumed anymore for good reason. It should be assumed. If you're not never been married, you're still a virgin. See that was the other assumption. Right. That's what that means now, but that was the deception. Well, that's the the the that's a good bible. It's a good translation. I've read it. I like it. I'm not against it. I'm just making the point, that it fell on hard times and never sold because of that one verse. I had a teacher in school. He was from Scotland, and he was one of my favorites. You've heard some of you have heard me talk about him a lot. His name was Donald MacDowell. And his parents were missionaries, and they wanted when they were young, to go to a place no white man had ever been. You know, they were young, ambitious, and they ended up going deep, deep, deep into Africa.
[01:34:04] Unknown:
And they rode bicycles. Oh, I thought you were gonna say the South Side Of Chicago. Yeah.
[01:34:11] Unknown:
Now that.
[01:34:12] Unknown:
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
[01:34:15] Unknown:
Well, you set him up, Brent. What's that?
[01:34:19] Unknown:
You sure set him up. Oh, yeah. That was good. Well, anyway, they got to this place. Well, they thought they got to a place where no white man had ever been, but they got there and they'd found some unknown, Brit, some white man who had Brit had been there, didn't tell anybody, went on his own, funded his own self, didn't make a big deal about it, but he lived with these folk for a decade or two, learned their tongue, and translated the Bible into English. He was not an educated man, so he just used the King James Bible and put it into English. Well, McDougal's mother and father wanted to translate give these people a Bible translation, and they finally did after a long, long, long time.
Well, the to that day, for all their work, that Bible translation has never been used. Because once people get a particular translation and get used to it, it is almost impossible to deviate from it, and they think that's the final word. That's just the way it works. And these people, these Africans deep in in Africa, if he didn't translate it just the way it was said in the one they got first, they weren't going to accept it. And that's what happens in all those situations. And that's what's happening with the King James. But remember remember, there have been many translations among many people throughout the world.
Martin Luther I'm not a Lutheran. I always say that when I say Luther's name because I don't want people to think I'm attached to the Lutheran church because the Lutheran Church, even though some of them think they're Bible believers, they have abandoned Martin Luther entirely. And they did that right after he died. And one of the things they abandoned was Luther one of Luther's foremost discoveries in the Bible, and that was predestination and the bondage of the will of the sinner. It's a fascinating subject again in church history. It's always been there, but people just can't stomach it. That's what they just can't accept that they're not in control. And you say, well, if God's in control and, predestination is true, then I don't have any choice.
Then he's taken away free will. That is not true. Not even a little bit. There's nothing contradictory about it. You just haven't thought it through. I ask people this. For example, Joe, am I who am I talking to? I forget. Bob. Oh, Bob is the one that yeah. Sorry, Bob. I have to picture the I have to picture Western Nebraska in my mind to keep you in mind. But I and bailing hay, which I know you do. Well, at any rate, a predestination, they say that's contradiction with free will. No. It isn't. No man no man can do anything he wants. That's not even possible to say you're free to do whatever you want. I used to wanna play basketball, wished I could play basketball like Larry Bird. Well, it wasn't really Larry. It was other people. Larry came after at the time I was in high school, but that wasn't gonna happen because I'm not six feet nine and a half inches tall and not gonna happen. Not like that. I didn't have no matter how much I wanted to do that, if it was my will, it wasn't going to happen.
I wanted a lot of other things in life that were impossible to happen. I, of course, I couldn't choose. I didn't choose where where I was born, who my parents were, who my brothers and sisters were, and who my friends were, where I went to school. I didn't choose any of that. And my parents didn't choose it either. They were kinda, captive of, God's sovereign as to what land they would be born in and where. They we couldn't choose our size, our shape, our hair color, our skin color. We didn't choose any of that. As the Bible says, we are not born from above by the will of any man. Wow. That's is that is that bordering on predestination? That's John chapter one verse 12. Yes. It is.
Not by the will of any man, but by the will but but but by the will of God the father. I've said this a lot. If I you've heard me say this, please bear with me. It's worth repeating. I'm not here in the flesh because I decided to be here. I'm here in the flesh because my dis my father decided he was gonna try to figure out how to seduce my mother and to go along with him on this project. That's why I'm here. And my mother, her will then combined with my father's will, and here I am. That's a good analogy, by the way. The Bible says that if you ever choose what is really good for, to say bluntly Jesus Christ, it's because God the father wiggled your willer.
He seduced you into it some as the as the reformer said, the Puritans, the will of God becomes irresistible. God makes it irresistible and you do choose the right thing, but it's not because it was in you to do that. No, you're dead. You're not even alive. How could you choose anything dead in your trespasses and sins? I'm I'm just repeating what the people that founded America said and what they believed. I read their writings. And they're just saying what the Bible says. You're dead in trespassing and sins. God does not save drowning people. He saves dead people. And, he he is the one that chooses by as your father. Fathers choose who will be born or when you will be born, how you will be born, by the spirit too.
Jesus Christ said, remember, he said this to his followers, you, you didn't choose me. In the final analysis, I chose you. We could even cut it this way. Let's say that you chose you choose to be a Christian. You choose Jesus Christ above all things. Now you think you did that. Well, still, if you really believe that you're the initiator of this, it's still dependent upon whether or not God will accept you. Well, but the Bible says he will. Well, yeah, but still that was his choice, not yours. No matter how you cut it, ultimately, your will is subject to your creator and you are a creature of your creator.
Now you say, well, do I have free will? Well, you have will. It's always been free to do certain things, but not anything you wanted to do. But it has been free. Yes. Certain things. But the difference between the man who is born of the spirit and the man who is not born of the spirit is this. The man who is not born of the spirit can choose an a whole lot of things within the scope of evil. A whole lot of things within the scope of evil. But the Bible says point blank, he cannot. It doesn't say he won't. It says he cannot choose what is ultimately righteous and good. What's that? Jesus the Christ. He can't do that. Martin Luther called it bondage of the will. His will is bound. That's the one thing he can't do. Even if he chooses to do something that's good on the human plane, he got a pound of flesh in it. He does it for the wrong reasons, and God won't accept that no matter how look good it looks.
Well, when some man is born from above by the will, not of the will of any man, including himself according to John's gospel, then all of a sudden he has a choice. At that point, he has a choice between between what is ultimate the ultimate good, Jesus Christ, and everything else, which is evil. And he will make the right choice. The Bible says God makes it irresistible to the one who was born from above. Why? Because he has given him a new heart, a new desire, a new mind, a new, a new basis of fact upon which to use logic. He has given him a new will. He wants to please his father. Just like you want to please your father in the flesh. Now you don't want to please other men. You're not a man pleaser. You're not you don't care what other people think. You want to please your father.
This is what God does for men and now you have freedom. That's why the Bible says, if the son make you free and don't think you're free before the new birth, as Jesus Christ said, you aren't. And I can see that every person that isn't is bound to themselves and their own sin, and they are destroying themselves. Sometimes slow, sometimes sometimes fast. But once you're born from above, you're a baby, you don't know anything, you don't even have self consciousness, then you begin to have self consciousness, then choices begin.
If you're a new creature, you have a new desire. And the Bible teaches that God does wiggle your willer, and he makes you willing. Let me quote the Bible, Old Testament. The Bible says that Yahuwah, God himself, the creator makes men willing in the day of his power. When he wants you to will what he wants you to will, he makes it irresistible and that's what you will that's what you will will. The Bible says that the heart that is the desire, the heart desire of the King. He's just another mortal. Just as an example, the heart of the King is in the hand of Yaho God himself.
And he turns it whithersoever he will. That's what God does. He's ultimately and finally sovereign in all things if he wants to be. It's all up to what he wants. I said to a fellow, I was trying to talk into taking a case the other day, a law case. And, I was trying to persuade him. He was saying, no. I don't think I don't want no. Finally, I said, look. It's all up to you. It's if you don't wanna take it, that I'm not gonna make you. And he said, you're damned right. And, you know, he kinda used a little bit of powerful cuss words there. Trying to emphasize it's up to me.
I'm the one that decides, not you, Brent. Well, was he right? Yes. He was right. I was trying to demonstrate to him that I understood that too. Well, God's in the up position. He's the one that says yes or no. And when you come before the maker of heaven and earth, the sovereign of all creation, he'll either look up at you and smile or he'll frown. That's his prerogative, not mine. I don't call his hand. I don't control him. He's not a genie. I say the right words and everything's okay and he'll do whatever I think he ought to do. No, no, no, no, no.
He says, and he describes particularly and tightly and depthly in Romans chapter eight exactly how it works. That's how that's how he does it. Well, that's my understanding of predestined and all I'm doing, friends, and my the best of my testimony and understanding is trying to just say, deliver to you what the Bible says about predestination and try to encapsulate it with the evidence given. If you don't believe that, it's not my job to change your mind. I don't have power to do that anyway. But it is my job to tell you what the book says, and it's not ambiguous. I don't care what anybody says. It's not as clear as crystal. Back to you, Roger.
[01:45:20] Unknown:
Thank you, Brent. Bob, I guess that got your question answered. Let's we don't have a whole bunch of time, but does anybody in the audience have anything, along with this conversation or others that you'd like to,
[01:45:34] Unknown:
ask for? To follow-up if you may. Yes, sir. Well, of course, you can. The new American standard then, I presume, just fits nicely on the end of that series.
[01:45:47] Unknown:
Yes. As a matter of fact, the new American standard is the pinnacle in the English speaking world and really of all the world of the policy of Bible translation seeking accuracy above all things. But it's gotta be somewhat readable, and it is. But Bible translators make fun of it, and they say, well I remember listening to, he's an Anglican, a well known one. He wrote the first Christian best selling book in the world outside the Bible. I mean, a bit no. Not the first best the first best seller worldwide, and it wasn't like, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress was a best seller in the English speaking world centuries ago, but the name of the book was, Knowing God. He was very much a a biblicist and very much, an errantist. The first time I heard him speak was at the international conference on biblical and errancy in 1982 in San Diego, California, a a very, a turning point in my understanding that conference. I was able to listen to all the all the leading men on the subject, and they had signed the Chicago statement, which is still a valid statement on biblical inerrancy.
And they were there to explain why they signed that statement. They signed it in Chicago, so they called it the Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy. And his name was, he was so well known. I can't even oh, J. I. Packer. And JI Packer said of the New American Standard Bible, he said he said, it is the most, without question, accurate translation in English in English that is available to us. And it gets you where the message of the Bible will take you sentence by sentence. It's just that the ride the ride through the sentence is a rough ride. That's what that's what he said. For my reason, I don't I don't think I don't it didn't feel that rough to me, I think. I understand it simple enough, and it is accurate. I mean, all the, all the, the seminaries and colleges that take the Bible seriously, demand use of that Bible when it comes to study for their classes because it is accurate. There's no question.
By the way, the most accurate rendition of it is not called the New American Standard Bible anymore. It's called the Legacy Standard Bible. And the reason it's called the Legacy Standard Bible is because the Lachman Foundation, which, publishes the New American Standard Bible, that's a charitable foundation. Fascinating history behind it. But they came out with a 71 edition, and then they came out with a revision where they tweaked it where they thought they could make it a little better in 1995. And then in 02/2020, they came out with another edition, and they tweaked it and thought they could make it better. And they would send they sent a copy of the 02/20 to a well known Bible teachers that had influence throughout the country.
One of them was John MacArthur with, arguably, the leading Bible expositor in the world today for just fame. He didn't know who he is. Well, he sent it back to them and said, I can't use this thing. Now keep in mind, John MacArthur went to school to the translators of the New American Standard Bible. He knew many of them, and much of the translation occurred right there where he went to school. And at that time, they were translating it, when he was in in seminary. So he knew them. Well, they sent him that 2020 edition. He sent it back, said, I can't use it. They said, why not? Well, he said, well, it's obvious you're trying to be gender neutral. Why are you doing that? Well, they said, well, because we're competing with the new international, version, they are gender neutral, and that has become popular. Everybody likes it, and, we're trying to compete with them. He said, well, the world may be changing, when it comes to sexual identity, but I'm not changing, and I can't do it. And but he said, I'll tell you what I will do. He talked to the folk at the seminary there, the men.
He said, if you'll give us license to do an update of it, make sure it's still accurate with the new discoveries of manuscripts in the last, thirty years or so, twenty five years. We'll do it. If you license us to do that, we'll call it the new legacy Bible because I went to school with all the translators of the new American standard. So we'll call it the legacy, new legacy translation. And, then you keep the copyright. We won't take the copyright. And they did that. So the new legacy Bible is the new American Standard Bible with just minor tweaks made where they thought they could, some discoveries had made had been made, the on the words and what they mean. And one of the words, of course, that are changed in that is the word translated or not translated, but they use the Jewish, the rabbi's method when they came to the name of God instead of translating it it for what they meant what it meant way back since the very beginning with the King James and beyond, they said, in all capital letters, the Lord.
The Lord. Well, that's not a translation of anything. That's following the rabbinical habit of saying, well, if we never say the name of God, we'll never take it in vain. In other words, they drew a standard of law that was not God's. They put a buffer zone between them and what the Bible says and just so they wouldn't cross. But remember this, when you're translating the Bible and understanding the Bible, God wants you to un to occupy the field. He wants to occupy the field. When he uses a word, he wants you to know what it means. Well, the they follow the rabbis. They don't know what it means. They didn't care. They just wanted to say, oh, this is what the rabbis did. That's silliness. So the New American Standard and the Legacy Bible did away with the Lord and put what they believed was the name of God in there.
Well, that's not going far enough for me. They said Yahweh. Well, they did two things wrong when they did that. I'm not complaining about it. I'm just they're trying to move forward. It's not a two syllable word. It's a three syllable word. I think that's clear. And the King James Bible had or the old translations had that right. They said, Jehovah. Jehovah. It's three syllables. But they didn't have the pronunciation right because they're they anglicized it and Germanized it. Anglo Saxon is a Germanic tongue. They Germanized it with hard hard vowels.
It's not Jehovah. It should be pronounced Yahoa. Yahoa clearly. Well, why they why do they don't do why they don't do that? I'll tell you why they don't do it. Because like I said before, once people get used to a certain Bible, they believe that straight from the mouth of God. I don't care what it is, and they're not gonna stand for anybody changing anything. Well, that's silliness, of course. I mean, if the if the truth is otherwise, well, I don't I don't make it yahoha in my translation. I make it I just translate it for what it means. I think God wants us to know what his name means. I don't think it. I know it. That's why I put it in there. And what the word means is he he happens. He happens.
It's the verb, the Hebrew verb of undefined action like in English, happen. That's a verb of undefined English. It happened. It became. It occurred. It befell. It be tied it. Those are verbs of undefined action. We don't know exactly what the action is, but the context provides it. But he's saying of himself God is saying of himself, I'm the one that makes everything happen. I'm the happening one, and I'm where it's happening. And when he it's a statement of his absolute sovereignty and predestination, for example. That's what that word means. He's in control of everything. He makes everything happens that does happen. He just doesn't know it's gonna happen. He makes it happen. He's the happening one. How do you process that? Well, first of all, you accept what it says because it's a matter of fact if the testimony and the evidence is sure. Then you try to see how it works out, and there are ways to do that. The first thing you do, if the Bible says it, it's the evidence and we accept the evidence for what it is. Well, back to the back to the revised standard version just to put a cap on this. The revised standard standard version is good, but Bible translation is something that people have been doing for many centuries.
And it's, it's important that we express the truth of the Bible in our own tongues, in our own day, in a way that's understandable to folk and be accurate about it. If you can be readable and eloquent, do it. If you can't, we live we don't live in a k in an age of accuracy, but political popularity is not should is not what should govern Bible translation. What should govern Bible translation is what God said. And Jesus Christ, God in human flesh, said every jot, that's the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet and every tittle, that's a serif on the end of some of the letters that would turn one Hebrew letter to another.
Every one of them will come to pass. In other words, he's he's certifying every word and every letter of the Bible. And it's our job to get it across as accurately as we possibly can. And that's what we try to do, and that's what God's man, starting way back there before William Tyndale, but in the English speaking world, John Wycliffe, starting there really with the Latin Vulgate, that's what men have tried to do. And by the way, that has what may has what has been what has made the English speaking world an engine of wealth and prosperity unlike the world has ever known. No question. Oh, by the way, I wanna mention because Roger and I have talked about this. The one translation that here's just another example of it that's unknown, never got a lot of traction, but he put it into his translation because he recognized that the English speaking world is what it is and has it had the enjoyment it has had because the English speaking world, above all other people, have majored on Bible translation.
And the Reformation is of England of England is not identified with just one particular man. And you can say that to some degree in Scotland, although there were prominent personalities. But the reformation on the island of Britain, unlike the reformation on the continent of Europe, depended upon the translation of a book. That's what moved men more than anything else. We we were we were going like crazy in the English speaking world, translating the Bible into English. Oh, other people did it, but not like we did. Over and over, we just kept trying we're still trying to get it right. God help us.
That's what I'm trying to do. I I love it. It's the standard of God. I'm trying to get it right back to you, Roger. Well, I'd like to throw the option out there for the people that are looking into this with any depth.
[01:56:52] Unknown:
And I got this again from pastor Peters. In fact, I purchased my volume from him, for our Fenton, who most of you have never heard of. And and it's f e r r a r f e n t o n. Just his story, is will move you to tears almost, really. Worked on it his entire life. And one of the things for accuracy that and and our I used our our pastor in Atlanta came once a month, James Brueggemann. He was traveling, in the Southeast, and he, like Brent, studied Greek and all the Latin, the old old languages, you know, and, Hebrew. And so every time he'd come to a word, Brueggemann, and he'd say, well, it could mean this or this or this or this.
And every time, the the Fenton version was right on. I mean, every time. There's another guy in the congregation, who had one. We look across the room at each other and smile. But, for our Fenton, I think he used the Greek manuscripts. What? Septuagint?
[01:58:02] Unknown:
Or Yeah. Farfetchum and that that was the one I was referring to. I said Roger and I have talked about it. Farfetchum's policy was this, and he's he said it right up front in his preface that he recognized that the Bible in English being so available to our people has made us who we are. Then there's no question about that. That is the first volume of our common law tradition. Mhmm. Well, the second in in our declaration of 76, the laws of nature, that's our common law tradition unwritten, and the laws of nature's God. That was the phrase from the Scottish enlightenment that referred to the Bible written the final court of last resort in any cases of an of apparent inconsistency. Of course, there is none. But if there is, he the Bible is final. And Fenton recognized that, but he also recognized that we need to keep working on it.
And and he did. Now
[01:58:54] Unknown:
everybody that translates to Roger, you ahead. Oh, I was just like you. He's he's been his entire lifetime. He was a very successful businessman. He, I think he had five different successful businesses. And when he went to Oxford, he was an atheist.
[01:59:09] Unknown:
Yes. And every person that translate seeks to translate the Bible, including Jerome, when he translated the Latin Volga. I don't fault him for what happened that them worshiping worshiping the Volga is final. That's silly, but, that's what Rome said. But even him, he believed he could do something to provide the word of God in a language people spoke. At that time, it was Latin. Well, people don't speak Latin anymore instead. Why would anybody wanna do that?
[01:59:38] Unknown:
We didn't even bring up characters like Westcott and Hort and some of these other folks that were in the that were they were all covered in that pastor Peter's King James only version. So interesting six hours of really interesting facts. So highly recommended.
[01:59:55] Unknown:
Yeah. If I may.
[01:59:57] Unknown:
Yeah. Samuel, you may. We're about to let me close out here first on the audience, because they're gonna get caught in your question. But, of course, it's Roger Sales and Brent Winters, and it's the Friday edition. We've been doing this for more years than either one of us would like to remember. And, I'm assuming it'll continue next week. So you can catch us six days a week here, and, you can catch Brent common lawyer dot com. We didn't even get to plug your website there, Brent. I would urge regular listeners. I I think tomorrow, we got Austin. Young Austin is gonna be back. Our young, gold dealer that's just stumbled across us. Thanks to Julie. And I'm gonna have a pretty exciting announcement. Somebody is for you tomorrow that I think will, well, I think it'll put a smile on your face. See you tomorrow. Ciao.
Okay. Well, I thought they were finished there, Brent. We got our Crosby, Stills, and Nash without young acapella version here. Gonna lay our bodies down, and we're gonna come back tomorrow. See you. Alright. Samuel, go ahead.
[02:01:08] Unknown:
Yeah. Brent, how much would you say that these new translations, let's say since the seventies, early seventies, rely on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus?
[02:01:22] Unknown:
The new translations that you're talking about since the seventies, specifically, the new American Standard and the New International Version. Those are the ones that are best known. There are others maybe that I don't know about. There's so many. But those, especially in the New International Version, rely on the Sinaiticus in the in the New Testament, of course. That's not the Old Testament. But rely on Sinaiticus or Sinaiticus, either way, found, by the way, it was discovered, purportedly, at the monastery at Saint Catherine's, which is at Mount Sinai.
Discovered there purportedly by a German scholar named Tischendorf back in the eighteen forties. And then the New American Standard does as well. And Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Vaticanus is in the Vatican. Sinaiticus was discovered at the monastery of Saint Catherine's, a Greek Greek Orthodox monastery. And then there's, two others, Aleph, which is the name of the third one named after the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. I'm not sure why they did that, but that was, these are primary and they're the minds of those translators. Why? Well, Constantine in about, well, that was about or after March, 03/25 was the council, of course, the big council of Mysia.
And, Constantine ordered a translation of the Bible be made in quarto or in, Uncial and column in Uncial in columns. All four of those translations, every letter is in Uncial. What does that mean? That means in capital letters. Why did they do that? Well, for the same reason we capitalize letters, today. For example, in the King James Bible, one's coming after it, we capitalize or the publishers capitalize the word the Lord when it should be translated Yahuah. But they use the Lord because they that's what the the rabbi say Adonai, which Hebrew for Lord. They won't pronounce the word, but they use all caps to to communicate that this is a very important word. Of course, we say I say, every word the Bible says is important and of equal dignity. It's the word of God recorded.
There's no there's no levels of importance. Every word must tell fully. Well, they capitalize the whole Bible in respect of the Bible. This has been going on through all cultures and centuries, and don't get caught up in all that Patriot stuff about all caps and no one. That that's hogwash every bit of it. They'll charge you a lot of money to draft documents for you, and you'll make the judge mad, and they'll try to send you to jail. Forget that. Yeah. That's not worth the trouble. But capital letters have No, Brent. You say it back, Addison. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait Give me give me He doesn't answer a question.
Yeah. Yeah. Give me long pause before you start because there's an overlap. And then once you start talking, I can't finish. I'll try to finish up so you can comment. But try to give long pause, and I'll try to do the same thing. I'll quit in just a minute, whoever was gonna say something. But, capital letters, those four, they were all in the same tradition, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Olaf, all of the same tradition, and it is believed, although we don't know, it is believed and it makes sense that these are the four or four of, the same copies that Constantine ordered. He ordered 50 of them be transcribed. That was before the printing press, and that's what people believe they are.
But and there's good evidence of it. Now who was it tried to chime in a while ago?
[02:05:16] Unknown:
Samuel would ask the original question, I think.
[02:05:20] Unknown:
Okay. Go ahead. Yeah. You know, Vaticanus came from the Vatican, and the Sinaiticus, which Tischendorf said he dug up in because the monks were burning it for scrap to get a fire going, was was claimed to be written by a living man by the name of Constantine Simonides, and I don't think it's ever been disproven. Well, it kinda So you got two things coming from the Vatican because Tischendorf was also tight with the popes.
[02:05:55] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. Number one, I'm glad you brought that up. Number one, Vaticanus is not really from the Vatican that we know of, but we know it's stored there. We know that. They're they're the keeper of it, and they wouldn't let anybody look at it until very recently, by the way, in the large scheme of things. Just nailing down facts. Number two, I agree with you that Tichendorf's claims are are questionable as a matter of evidence. And I'm not fully persuaded about what he says and how he found it and the things you're talking about. Oh, that's true. And, of course, there was a full copy, and he said the monk had it in his cell. And he said, well, I got a lot of stuff like that. And he took what he found in the trash cans that the the monks were using, when they they were wiping their pens using leaves from, what he said was that, Sinaiticus to wipe the ink off the end of their pens and no. Not Sinaiticus.
Other manuscripts is old. And then someone monk said to him, well, I've got, stuff like that in my cell, and he had this this manuscript of the entire Bible, Old and New Testament in Greek wrapped in, expensive cloth and laid up on a ledge in his cell on a on a timber of wood that he kept up there. And, oh, what's his nose? Tischendorf spent he was a German scholar from the universities one of the universities in Germany, spent the rest of his life, claiming, trying to get that back to Germany. So, no, I I recognize that, and I say that too. But you're you bring up things that are true, but I don't get overly exercised about it except to say, his claims are doubtful. And that's what you're saying. Am I right? Well, Brent
[02:07:42] Unknown:
Brent, did you did you know that between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, in the gospels alone, there's 3,000 different textual problems?
[02:07:53] Unknown:
Well, the no. That's no. No. No. That that's not true. They're more like 300,000. You're you're not even coming close. And this is another thing that people don't take cognizance of, the variations in the Bible. There's more than people say the the King James and other people even say. But, but the fact is about the variations, it's all a matter of the rules of evidence. Every bit of this. We're talking about the laws of evidence here. What is reliable evidence and what isn't? We have almost fixed 6,000 manuscripts of New Testament documents now. When the King James was translated, they had six, just six, and all of them were relatively recent, and they didn't even have enough manuscripts to translate the last book of the Bible. They didn't have any Greek manuscripts to translate the last 12 verses because the last leaf of the manuscript they had, which was a papyri leaf, had rotted and fallen off.
So, the Textus Receptus, as it came to be called, was being translated, from, into Greek. He was trying to publish it. His name was, what was that fellow? Erasmus. Yeah. Erasmus. Thanks, Larry. Erasmus. Yeah. The the the monk from The Netherlands, he back translated from the Latin Volgate into Greek so we'd have a Greek Greek words to translate from. By doing so, he introduced 12 new variations into the Greek text because he didn't have it. But that there are so many variations in all those 6,000 texts that you can hardly you can't nobody even knows, Larry. And the people, in, that come to catalog, the ones that have the ascendancy in cataloging and naming all the manuscripts and fragments that are discovered are in Germany.
And, they are have tried to catalog all the variations, and it's really not possible because of this. Well, let me say this first. Of all the variations, almost all of them are without any consequence at all. For example, spelling of a word using one vowel instead of another. And no matter how you cut it, it's still the same word. No matter how much you look in the rest of the Greek tongue, you don't find anything different. There are other, variations. Most of them are like that. There are other variations. For example, in the Greek New Testament, there are right around 20,000 occurrences of the definite Greek article, Around 20,000 occurrences.
Now that means if you learn the the Greek the use of the Greek definite article, you have learned, you have learned one seventh one seventh of the Greek New Testament. That's how many times the definite article is used. It's used so much that if we translated it into English, it would become absolutely senseless. Because it says things like this. If I were to translate the article just as an example of the way it's used, there's articles in front of the nouns, definite article. The definite article in English is the. We only have one, the. And that indefinite article is a.
A house or the house. If I say the house, well, I'm speaking about a particular house, it adds identity to the noun. If I say a house with the the indefinite article a, it could be a lot of I'm stressing. I'm I'm not talking about any particular house. Well, in the Greek tongue as well as the Hebrew, by the way, there is no indefinite article. You just have noun if it's indefinite. If it's definite, then you have the the definite article. You'll see it there. And the Greek tongue would say something like this. The Peter said to the Jesus.
Well, that's rough English. It's good Greek, but it's rough English. And that's not translated hardly at all, of course, in any translation because we don't say the Peter spoke to the Jesus. We say Peter said to Jesus. Well but is it important? And the answer is yes. It's important because definitely God saw to it by the superintendents of his spirit to put those articles in there. And to stress the identity of the noun that the speaker, the rec the recorder is talking about a particular Peter, not just any Peter and a particular Jesus, not just any Jesus. See, that can be real important. There are a lot of Jesuses in that day and a lot of Peters, and we see that in ancient history and in the Bible itself. So, there are a lot of variations in the manuscripts with things like that that don't make any difference at all.
They don't change anything and couldn't change anything, and most of all variations are like that. But let me say this. There are some variations that are, are a difference, but even those that are big that we know about don't make any difference. For example, the last 12 verses of the gospel of Mark are not are not in those old manuscripts you're talking about. They're not in the Sinaiticus. They're not in Vaticanus. Although between those, there are some variations too. They're not in any of those. But they are in lots of manuscripts from the Middle Ages from the Middle Ages, that what we call the majority.
Most manuscripts have those, but those manuscripts are from the Middle Ages. Now here's the question that I think should be asked, two questions, and this comes back to the laws of evidence. We call it, in common law, we call it the best evidence rule. What is the best evidence? Is it the oldest evidence or the majority? The majority of the manuscripts say this particular thing or the oldest ones, should we use those? Now that's the fundamental argument that that is dealt with in this manuscript argument between the majority text, as we say. That's the King James, the received text, and and the there's not agreement among those either, by the way. And the, we call it the the, minority text.
In other words, does one old manuscript is that more reliable than a thousand more recent manuscripts? Now the rules of evidence under the best evidence rule would say the closer the manuscript is to the source in general, not always, but in general, that would be the preferable one for we would give that greater weight of reliability. Let's take, for example, the last 12 verses of Mark. Those last 12 verses are kinda weird. And as a matter of fact, as a matter of Greek grammar, they don't fit the gospel of Mark at all. Whoever wrote Mark, I assume it was Mark. He had ways of writing things and doing things and his personality and his vocabulary and those last 12 verses do not fit Mark, but they're there in the majority of the manuscripts.
Number one. Why do we say that the older is better? And why do we say that the shorter the shorter, man the manuscripts that have a shorter text, you know, or a shorter sentence or a shorter phrase or are in general more reliable than the longer? Well, because under the best evidence rule, we discover that mankind is more prone to keep things in the text than to get rid of them. And we discover that throughout the history of the church, the monks working in the scriptorium. By the time you get to the middle ages, you have professional scribes copying this stuff out in the monasteries.
Greek minus or, Roman monasteries and Orthodox monasteries. Really that's all the same. Historically, that was all the monolithic church of the middle ages. Those men had a lot of weird ideas and they were under the control of some weird priests. I mean, weird and sex perverts on top of that, and they still are. That's historic fact. It's always been that way. Let's not deny history, and let's be, let's be halfway intelligent men that will accept the evidence of history. Do we want to rely on all that? I don't know. That's the question. I'm not saying that that's the controlling question, but that's a matter of the weight of evidence. And here we go again, Larry. We are people, men, Christian men are to look at the evidence and we are to be comfortable with some uncertainty of evidence. That's what evidence is. It's a matter of wait a minute. How does this fit with this? And we're looking at the manuscripts of the New Testament. Let me end with this.
All of these variations, there's not a one, not a one, among all of them that's ever been discovered that changes any doctrine of Christianity. Not a one at the fundamental level. In other words, who Jesus Christ is, what salvation is, how it happens. None of the variations change any. Well, and the King James would say, for example, well, the new the new there these guy these translations that follow these, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and all that. Well, let's let's take Sinaiticus, for example. Is it evidence? Yes. Is that it's just discovery and its origins questionable?
Yes. In my mind, I've read the history of it. It's questionable. Is it evidence? Yes. It's it does pass the test to be offered before the jury and should be offered. And you should con you're considering it, and you've revealed to me that you have read about this, and you're trying to work through it as we all have and are still are. But I'm I've just, encourage you. It's a matter of evidence. You have to come to your decision. I've come to mind. I've come to mind on a lot of things about this. I haven't revealed them all here, but it's just a matter of using the evidence. But God has not left us without evidence that's so overwhelming of the truth of everything that's important, everything of any consequence in the New Testament or the Old. The evidence is so utterly overwhelming it is a veritable embarrassment of riches.
And God has made the Christian man's mind persuadable to the truth. Nobody else's, but he has and he has provided him not just a little evidence, overwhelming evidence. And so, yeah, I'm glad you're looking at it. I'm looking at it. I will till they till I leave this veil of tears. But I do want to say something about it in this sense, and I have done so to say there's no variations there that make any difference in Christian doctrine. Does the King James or does the new King James Bible have things in it and words in it? Yeah. Look. New American Standard Bible doesn't have? You bet. It's the shorter version. Not a lot, but, I mean, a word here, a phrase there, it does that. Yeah. That's true. Go ahead, Larry. Do you wanna somebody wants to respond. Samuel, I I wanted to say that. Cut out. Hold on. Hold on. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Roger takes precedent. Roger, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I wanted to say there's very few places on the dial that you can find discussions
[02:19:18] Unknown:
like this in this depth on these kind of very important historical and significant topics. So go ahead, whoever's gonna say something. I just wanted to make that comment. Yeah. It's
[02:19:30] Unknown:
Samuel. It Westcott and Hort Yep. And and Tischendorf were agents for the Catholic church.
[02:19:41] Unknown:
Okay. But stop and consider. The agents of the Catholic Church were the monks and the priests that copied out the majority text that the King James uses. And the King James trans the King James Translator, to call them translators, included all the apocryphal books of Rome in the King James Bible. We could go on and on and on with those arguments, pointing to people like like, Ted Weiland does, they appoint to them. Seem to have a you're talking to them. Samuel, stop it. Stop. I'm Damn it. And I'm and by the way, Sam, I'm sorry. I thought I was talking to Larry. I get mixed up thinking about my subject. Samuel, please. I'm sorry. You're Samuel. I'm I I got it now. But the one the men that drafted the constitution of The United States were many of them, I think, not many, some at least were controlled by the bankers. Well, then no question.
But that's not an argument against the constitution any more than saying that Peter the apostle was a scoundrel and Abraham was a scoundrel and Isaiah had personal problems, and we all know that. And and Matthew was a tax collector. I mean, who could be lower on the scale in the eyes of the nation even now? But God will pour truth through anybody he wants to pour it through and their personality, and he will make straight straight licks with crooked sticks. And if we didn't have the Roman monks, we wouldn't have these variations and the majority text at all. And if we didn't have Greek Orthodox priest at Constantinople who smuggled out the manuscripts in the New Testament rottenness of man is no argument at all. God uses men. That's what he does to make, to make to get done what he wants to get done. But go ahead, Samuel. Hey, Brent.
[02:21:31] Unknown:
Yeah. No, Larry. Same.
[02:21:35] Unknown:
No. I I've you know, if we're gonna agree to disagree, I I really don't believe that the the Catholic church never translated the Bible according to Jesus Christ.
[02:21:50] Unknown:
And they haven't covered that up. Sad. And they had a girl they had can I finish? No. No. You can't. They had a screen tell else on it. No. Samuel, you can't. I wanna break in. That's my prerogative. You can't prove a negative. Nobody can. So that's that's not a a sensible statement to start with. But I I want you to go ahead and I do. Say. Go ahead.
[02:22:14] Unknown:
Listen. I there's no way to have a conversation here, so I'm gonna quit. I'm just gonna say that I don't trust the Catholic church any further than I can throw it.
[02:22:25] Unknown:
Well, well, Samuel, I don't trust you. Samuel, listen to me. Listen to me, Samuel. I don't trust me or you any farther than a guy can throw either one of us. That's silly talk.
[02:22:38] Unknown:
We're we're agreed.
[02:22:39] Unknown:
I just when you talk about as you know, the men that drafted the Bible would not be welcome in any church today, including yours. You're not gonna convince me otherwise. I think that's the way it is. Men don't recognize that as though there's some kind of saints out there like the translators of the King James Bible. And if you'd read the story of their lives, you would find out interesting men, but boy, did they have problems. And you probably wouldn't want your children near them either. Let's get real about humanity. And the one thing that people we're talking about the reformed tradition of our founders. The one thing that goes along with predestination that people that call themselves Christians don't accept is the absolute and utter depravity of the human heart.
And along with that, the absolute and exclusive use that God makes of these men with depraved hearts to do what he wants done, and he does. I think those are two doctrines that are fundamental that have been forgotten and should be acknowledged, and it brings humility. It brings a lot of humility. Who would say somebody who said the things that Oregon and Augustine said? These fellows said things that makes me think that their minds are twisted really bad at some points. But then I read other things they said, and I say, wow. He's got that nailed. That's biblical.
And the same thing is true of me. There are a lot of people who listen to me, and they say this is ridiculous. What is Brent saying? Maybe I say things that are true, maybe I don't. But what I do is give you my testimony, just my testimony of what I clearly see in the Bible. And if I clearly see something in history, I'll testify to that too. But I don't I think it's wrong to argue, though I wouldn't trust the Catholic church as far as I could throw them. Well, I wouldn't trust the Baptist. I wouldn't trust the King James. I that what's the difference? I don't the the Bible says there isn't. But back to whoever had the floor wanted to say something. Well, I think Samuel did It's Larry. And Larry's there.
[02:24:38] Unknown:
Go ahead, Larry. Yep.
[02:24:41] Unknown:
Yeah. So, I'd like to circle back to my question earlier on in the program. But before I do that, I just wanna make sure I understand something you said. So you I think Samuel brought this up right after I asked my my question early in the program, about the fourteenth amendment. And so, Brent, do you agree that there are no US citizens, today because they were the former freed slaves? However, you do agree a person can volunteer to be one. Is that correct?
[02:25:16] Unknown:
Well, if a man comes from another country and he wants to be naturalized, he can do that. Is that voluntarily? I know people have done that. You probably do too, don't you?
[02:25:29] Unknown:
Right. They will be a US citizen, but Roger teaches even after someone's naturalized with after a certain period of time, they can
[02:25:40] Unknown:
they can become what's known as a national, a state citizen. Well, the the government agrees with it because we've had it happen. I'm sorry, Roger. It's not what Roger says. The government agrees with what is submitted, Larry.
[02:25:55] Unknown:
Well, okay.
[02:25:57] Unknown:
I'm sorry. No. I'm I'm not putting you on the spot, Roger. I'm just saying that that's what Roger teaches to Brent. Look. Brent doesn't see it that way. I recognize that, and I respect it.
[02:26:08] Unknown:
I understand what he sees. I understand the way he's coming from. Okay?
[02:26:13] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. My my only idea is and, Roger gets it apparently. But I wanna say it again because you're pressing men. You wanna get it clear. You are not who the government says you are. You are what true law says you are, and that starts in our Christian tradition. And you if the constitution, if the fourteenth amendment contradicts our understanding of what it means to be an American, oh, then that's not what you are. And, you are what our constitution says you are. And if you believe the fourteenth amendment means one thing or another, it seemed to me that you I think you said a while ago, all the people that the fourteenth amendment was targeting are gone. Is that true? That's why I understand it. No. I'm sorry. Roger, that's you tell me if I'm right.
All the people that were former slaves are now dead and gone. And that would
[02:27:10] Unknown:
Well, see, they've set up that position so they could I believe this is what was the cause of the civil war is what I've come to believe. And I'll tell you what I lately realized that buttresses that is this is exactly the same time they were grooming Scofield. So they were already thinking that far ahead, both religiously and politically.
[02:27:31] Unknown:
And I think that they
[02:27:33] Unknown:
did that and got those two amendments in there so that they could control eighty years later, control The US through the bankruptcy, and then through the dollar that's based on this status,
[02:27:45] Unknown:
control the world. And that's exactly what's happened. Well, I can't argue with what's happened. I'm making this point simply. And I don't I'd be half a heart I think the devil thinks I had that quit that far. I think the usefulness of the evil empire just want to fill their lust, and he manipulates. Well, they do. I see the Bible teaches it, but any to any has. But, the fourteenth amendment, Roger, I'll ask you and then you can respond. Maybe I haven't focused in on this enough with you. Does the fourteenth amendment target freed men of color that were slaves? Is that the idea? That was the original intent. Yeah. The original manifestation
[02:28:23] Unknown:
is a better way to put it. And it's a a a firm go go ahead, Roger. Something else. Have you heard Trump lately say? He said the fourteenth amendment was for the children of slaves. Yes. And that's You know what? He's exactly correct. But it's not then. It's now.
[02:28:41] Unknown:
Okay. So, it's a standard of law, has always been and still is, that once the purposes of a a law, a standard, and the constitution of The United States is a standard of law, once its purposes are fulfilled, it has no more force.
[02:28:58] Unknown:
Period. Well, Brent, listen. We don't our enemies don't think like we do. They do things different. And if you can't understand how they think, you probably can't get your arms around this totally. And I know we had this conversation. We've been having this conversation, audience, for years. Yeah. We have. But nothing new here. Okay? No. No. No. Nothing new. That's why it gives me cold chills when Larry brings it up, but I understand it. Okay? Yeah. I I respect Brent's opinion. I got a different insight. I can think like them, and I've unraveled this, son of a bitch. And the way they get you into it, Brent, is not voluntarily in the front end. It's voluntary on the back end. And their thinking is, if I ask you what you are even though it was set up on fraud and you agree, well, I'm gonna take you at your word.
We don't think like they do.
[02:29:54] Unknown:
Well and I'm I'm satisfied. They think pretty crooked, but I'm just making the point that I am what the law says I am. I the the fourteenth amendment by any other standard, and you see this in the Bible, you see it in our common law tradition. And by the way, just to bring up one other point as proof of this, from '19, when say the fourteenth amendment, Roger, was that 1871 or when was it? '68. '68. Okay. From the fourteenth amendment clear up until the early nineteen fifties, really, Brown versus Board, lawyers still and courts still call the fourteenth amendment and the legislation passed in the eighteen seventies to enforce it.
The sleeping civil rights laws and amendment. They call it sleeping. Dormant. They use the word dormant, which in Latin means sleeping. Well, why was it sleeping? Well, really it was dead. They want to call it sleeping because they wanted to revive it, but it was dead. It wasn't used. Nobody paid attention to it. I don't see the Jim Crow laws as sleeping. I see them as kind of out front. Well, they they say they're it wasn't applied. It wasn't used to give the man of color the vote and to let him go to school with little white boys and girls. It was dead. Really that way where everybody forgot it and just did away with it and said, done. Let's move on. You see, I I think these guys in the a eighteen hundreds
[02:31:23] Unknown:
knew exactly what was going on today. And I think they knew all the way back then because they know us a hell of a lot better than we know them. Okay? Sun Tzu stuff. I think that they knew back then that they were gonna ask you. They're gonna put you into this condition with a bankruptcy. They're gonna ask you, is that you? Are you a citizen of The United States? Are you a resident? And have you signed something? And now they've got your agreement. And they're gonna proceed that way because of the slave and bastards that they are.
[02:31:52] Unknown:
I just can't I can't accept that they're that smart to think that far ahead because I see. It's not them. It's Satan. Brent, it's not them. It's Satan. That's that's Labor is Satan's plan. They are the useful idiots of the devil himself. I I just said that. Right. Okay. We're on the same page there. So the devil is orchestrating useful idiots to get what he wants, but they aren't thinking ahead that far. They just want what they want when they want it. They're driven by their lust. And the devil has a big plan here. I mean, scratch himself. Yeah. They they can't do their lust until they've got control of us. Now I'm telling you,
[02:32:27] Unknown:
for fourteen years, we've been submitting these documents. For fourteen years, they've been recognized. And the only thing that they can do is send back, and it's pretty slickly worded, I'll agree, the buff letters on the passport application. And that's the only defense they've got, and that's pretty easily pierced when you've got the kind of knowledge and understanding we have. So all I can say is whatever my theory is and however it registers with you, wherever you are and whoever you are, They recognize it every time.
[02:33:01] Unknown:
If you file an affidavit like that, you're doing so under your duty. The constitution protects it of, petitioning for redress of grievances and corrections. So you're doing that. Is there anything wrong with that? No. There's everything right about it. And, the whole word, even the word citizen, is not part of our common law tradition. It's a law of the city word Mhmm. Code of Justinian in the Greek and Roman world, the Babylonian tradition. It so it confuses us. But, anyway, getting back to the point, the difference I see is, if there is any, I'm just saying no. I don't care what they say I am. I know what the law says I am. But if I wanna correct them, I can do that. I do that when I go to court. I correct what the judge says. I file a motion. I say, no. That's not the the standard. No. That's not the facts. Wait a minute. The way it works, the way I understand the law is this. And that's what that's the way it works in our common law tradition. But that doesn't doesn't I'm never gonna agree with somebody saying things that aren't gonna aren't true. And And if they're saying things that aren't true, I don't wanna agree with that, and I'm not going to. Then I wouldn't either. Yeah. And you're not either, and that's why you're saying what you're saying. Well, this is a fine point, Roger, between us. And I don't know for sure whether I'm almost thinking you're agreeing with me.
[02:34:20] Unknown:
Well, I understand what you're saying. And here's the way I see what you're saying. You're born under God's laws until your feet come out of mama's birth canal unless you're a breech birth. K? Because right then, that o o o slick throws that blanket over you at that point. You don't know it when you're young. But then after you get 18, they start asking you, hey. Do you agree with us? Are you in this status here, this this, fourteenth amendment status? You go, yeah. And they go, what? Do you, agree to allow us to govern you and give us the consent to govern you in that capacity under the laws of Washington, DC? And you go, yeah. And you sign something. You've agreed with their fraud. One of the reasons they have to, recognize this is because all that fraud.
[02:35:06] Unknown:
Well, if it's fraud if it's fraud then, it it's not true. Because I know. Yeah. And you've said that before too. So it's still not true. Let me go back to another point. This is even more fundamental, but to the same, same question. One of the most powerful, duties that God has given to our the Adam's race is to name our children and go by the name by our discernment that we we wanna go by. In other words, our names mean something. We should think they do. And to take that as our name, and we're against the whole world according to our laws, even in our states. And, God himself in the Bible is the power of name.
And that that is the power of saying this is who I am, be damned everybody else.
[02:35:54] Unknown:
That's really what that is. It's what your choice is from it's got to be your choice. You've got to be able to decide what set of laws you're gonna live under or else it's utter tyranny. Open and blatant. Let me give the two. Yeah. That's true. Let me give another example, and that I see that, Roger. Another example. Most of the New Testament,
[02:36:13] Unknown:
epistles are written to Christian people who don't know who they are, and that's why they that's why the epistles are written. Mhmm. I mean, Paul John says right in the first chapter of his first epistle, I write these things to you that you may know and that you may have enjoyment. Fact is you don't fully grasp who you are and because you aren't, you're letting other people define who you are and you're missing out on the enjoyment. So they are Christians. They know their identity in Jesus Christ. No. They didn't know their identity and Jesus Christ didn't understand it. That doesn't change their status. They are who they say they are. And, when communist take over, they want to redefine everybody, give everybody new names, tell them who their country is, do away with the past.
Well, that's trying to usurp the place of God. God's in charge of that. And to understand who you are and to assert it is really the foundational duty of the Christian man and woman. So this whole thing that you're talking about, Roger, goes to that point. Yeah. I believe. Well,
[02:37:21] Unknown:
you know what? I thanks to John and Glenn. I was always you know what drove me all these years, Brent?
[02:37:27] Unknown:
What?
[02:37:28] Unknown:
Nonresident alien at 26 CFR one point one dash one a. Uh-huh. And I said, man, they have gone to a lot of trouble to do this right here. What's behind it? Boy, that drove me for years.
[02:37:43] Unknown:
Uh-huh.
[02:37:44] Unknown:
And, so over the years, God what's the Bible say above all, seek understanding? Uh-huh. Well, I've got understanding. And you and I have talked about this before. When you get enough knowledge in your old cranium up there Uh-huh. All of a sudden, you start get given answers. Uh-huh. But here's an answer. Bam. You go, holy smoke. Why didn't I think about that? Okay? Mhmm. So that's what has happened over all these years, and it's just like a puzzle little piece by little piece. And somebody would say, well, Vatel Law, our nation says every man has a right of personal political self determination. Oh, really?
And it's just over all these years that that has come to me as understanding. And so, the the the day I got and saw the first passport application and everything came together for me, and I somewhat reluctantly, because I was moving to Argentina come hell or high water, somewhat reluctantly, sent in a passport application with my five page affidavit in it. That was the summer they changed the law that you can't travel to Canada or The Caribbean or Mexico on a driver's license. You had to get a passport card. Mhmm. What's what year wait. What year was that? 02/2007. Oh, okay. Okay. Well And and they were swamped with people that already had vacation plans because they changed the rule late in the year. And, so I was waiting and waiting and waiting, like, eight more weeks, and bam, finally, one day, it came in the mail.
And I went, holy smokes.
[02:39:22] Unknown:
You know, Roger, you have for example, let's see another example of this point about identity. Why did, Rome burn thousands upon thousands, crucify thousands upon thousands? Why did Bloody Mary murder translators of the Bible all told about people that were interested in that, about 300? All these 100 a 100,000 people Rome murdered in in Europe during the the craze of the witches, the hammer of the witches. Why? Well, a lot of it was because, the the evil empire said, this is you who you are. Your identity, for example, is in Rome. And if you say your identity is in Jesus Christ, ultimately, we'll kill you. And they did. And if you were not They still are. Yes. And if you're not baptized into the Roman system and in Europe, it was a monolith of Romanism.
You had to have Christian baptism to have existence. The the the the state, the powers that be, the Roman church, and the Roman holy Roman empire, and all that baloney wouldn't even recognize your your existence and your identity unless you had it in a birth certificate recorded in a in a cathedral as a baby. That's what they did, and it was a matter of identity. And if you didn't take that identity, even if you took it and rejected it and became an Anabaptist, they'd burn you alive. If you were a Romanist and said a couple of things like Jesus Christ is and the Bible is central, well, they wouldn't burn you alive. They'd strangle you first then burn you, but you reject that birth certificate and they they burn you alive. And the the baptism certificate, which is the birth certificate, that's all that is. That's the way they called it back then. But it all comes back to if you reject the identity that the evil empire wants to put upon you and say no, that's not it. Well, yes, there can be problems and we are to realize what our true identity is and assert it. And most Christians don't.
That's the point that I see in all of this. And they don't enjoy the Christian life, the new birth because they don't. That's what John says in first John.
[02:41:32] Unknown:
Brent, I don't know about you, but my stomach is is really growling and Oh, yeah. We're almost three hours into the program today. Yeah. I know. Larry, I hesitate to address you.
[02:41:46] Unknown:
Yeah. I'm not trying to make you upset, Roger. I just was curious about Brent's perspective about what he thinks of the fourteenth amendment. But Oh, man. I'm just like default. What's Go back about twelve years in the archives,
[02:42:00] Unknown:
and every Friday, we'd have this discussion most Fridays. There. And it would be Cheryl I could possibly do. Hold on. Let me finish. Daryl and Chris and me ganging up on Brent. Now we did that for over five years. Okay?
[02:42:19] Unknown:
Right.
[02:42:19] Unknown:
Okay? And, just a follow The Spanish word is intenda. That means understand.
[02:42:28] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. Well, Roger Just a quick follow Roger. No. Go ahead. If you wanna go, Roger, I won't keep you, and I'll listen to what Larry says. No. I'm not. No. I'm hanging on to what he's gonna do. So let let me say.
[02:42:40] Unknown:
Okay. Yeah. So just to follow-up on my my question that I asked earlier in the program about, what there's there's patriot teachers out there teaching that that little pronoun for makes a big difference, when it when it's referring to the constitution. So I came up with three definitions. I was doing a little, you know, analyzing online, and they got the 1787 constitution, and that's the one that the Patriot teachers teach is saying it's a constitution for The United States Of America. And what they're saying is, that forms the union of unincorporated organic land jurisdiction, states of America into a union of sovereign states doing business as an unincorporated United States Of America.
And then the second constitution is the 1789 constitution, and this is where they changed the wording to of it's the constitution of The United States Of America, and the definition to this one is, this is a foreign British controlled district government was created of The United States Of America, meaning apart from, outside of, or belonging to The United States Of America. And then the last one is the Constitution of The United States Of America in 1868, which appears virtually identical to the 1789 constitution. It is no longer represent represented, by a trilateral international treaty among sovereign states, but instead secretively recast as a charter of a British commercial corporation in the business of providing government services.
So I'd like your thoughts on on those three constitutions, or if or is that just a bunch of patriot mythology?
[02:44:42] Unknown:
That is patriot mythology. It's bad enough. Come up all that creative stuff, that's just hogwash. Just silly hogwash. Not only that, they're claiming to be grammarians, and they got all that wrong too. So first of all, you said, of The United States Of America then for The United States Of America. Is that is that two of them? Is that what you said?
[02:45:06] Unknown:
Right. So the 1787 is for it's a constitution for The United States Of America. K. And then 1787, they changed it of, and, 1868 is also of.
[02:45:19] Unknown:
Okay. So, there are two possibilities here, for and of. For, the use of the word for is that that that's understood to be the objective genitive. When you use the word of and and then also in the Greek New Testament, that's what it's called when that those concepts are used. Of is the is the ablative of source. Ablative of source. So in both cases, let's take either one. For The United States Of America, that means it's the direct object. A constitution for The United States Of America. That's easy. Is it for The United States Of America? Yes. Is it for the States Of America that are united? Yes. That too. And there's no difference between those two. It's for them. Oh, I like that. That sounds good. This constitution is for the states.
Then second, of ablative of source. Source, that means where did it come from? What is the source of this constitution? Constitution of ablative from The United States Of America. From ablative of source. The United States, The States Of America, those, 13 are original states. The constitution is from them. It's the product, the product of. That's another understanding of the ablative of source. The product of the states of America. Is there anything wrong with that? No. I like that too. In other words, the states are sovereign. They're the ones that produce it. Well, let's go to the constitution preamble. We, the people of The United States, in order to form a more perfect union. What's the people of The United States? That is the militia of the several states. There are 13 of them at that time, the several states of the union. So the militiamen are the ones that constitute the states. They're the ones that form the state governments. They're also the ones that in control of those state governments, the ambassadors of those state governments, the source of authority for those state governments that then said, we're gonna get together and we're going to lend our state's authority to forming the United States Of America.
That's what I understand how it happened. That's what I understand from those simple words. Either way you cut it, it's a good thing. But the only question is maybe which which one of those is in the original one? The the one that the that the ratifiers, the militiamen of the several states ratified when they constitute and I that 1787 is good, but the one after that's good too. That's just silly talk. Question. Those are the kind of variations we have in the Bible that are variations, a difference without a difference. That's what you have. And the Bible has a thousands, hundreds of thousands of those. Go ahead.
[02:47:56] Unknown:
Go ahead. Rick, go ahead.
[02:47:59] Unknown:
Okay. A possible reason for this, and correct me if I'm wrong, Brett, about my dates. 1787, they had the constitution, but it wasn't ratified till 1789 because the bill of rights wasn't in it until then. So in '89, it was ratified. So it was the constitution on.
[02:48:21] Unknown:
That's a good point. That's a good point. It was drafted in '88, offered in '89 or '8 or wrapped in '87, offered in '88 and ratified in '89. And that's it. If that's what it is, then that's it.
[02:48:35] Unknown:
Good point. Good point. Excellent. Thank you. Okay, Brent. I gotta go. You gotta go eat, Roger. We're getting the I am. I'm starving, man. Listen. Always a pleasure to have you on here. There are just very few places on the face of this dial that I know of that you can find these kinds of discussions on these deep, subjects and issues that we well, it's just incredible. So thank you, Brent, always. And, we'll see you next Friday, hopefully. You had we didn't get to discuss any of the stuff that's going on. Speaking of Catholics, Israel and Gaza destroyed the oldest daily Catholic services in the world. Do you hear about that?
No. Yeah. It was over in Gaza, and it's very interesting. They a tank. They hit it with two tank shells and then said it was a mistake. But even in destroying it, the cross on the top still stands. Now the other thing is the I guess they say it's a church that Jesus taught in. It's over in the West Bank. It's a town of Christians, and they've just destroyed or destroying that church also and trying to drive those people out. And the, Christians that live in Israel, they they can't get out fast enough. Scratch going on right now. K? Uh-huh. So, anyway, very interesting times.
I'll see y'all tomorrow. Thank you, Rod. Here. We got some we got some real exciting stuff coming, man. I think we finally hit hit one of those long veins. Okay?
[02:50:14] Unknown:
Yeah. We have. And, Roger, there's no place where we could find this kind of passion with the listeners that we have here. That's true. Yeah. So that makes it all richer for all of us. Well, I'm gonna go
[02:50:25] Unknown:
to, if all hearts are free. Roger's out of here. I'll see y'all tomorrow. Could be to Austin and a special announcement. It's gonna tickle you. Okay? Alright. Ciao. See you tomorrow. Thanks, Brent always and Franny.
[02:50:39] Unknown:
Bye. Bye.
[02:50:50] Unknown:
And that about wraps it up for the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales and Brent Ellen Winters, the Friday edition on eurofolkradio.com and Global Voice Radio Network. Thanks so much for joining us today. We're here Monday through Saturday, 11AM to 1PM eastern. Today, we went a little longer. It's not it's always nice when the guys can hang out a little bit afterward, And, I just wrap up some of the discussions of the show. Our our website is thematrixdocs.com, which is where you will find links to Eurofolk Global Voice, the free conference call links to join us live on the show, and also new student section interviews and downloads.
Thanks for joining us. I'm Paul from Global Voice Network. That is it for today. Take care. Blasting the voice of freedom worldwide, you're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[02:52:00] Unknown:
Bye bye, boys. Have fun storm in the castle.
Introduction and Guest Announcement
Discussion on Aging and Family History
Historical Anecdotes and Personal Stories
Jesse James and Outlaw Legends
Legal Discussions and Common Law
Constitutional Amendments and Legal Interpretations
Bible Translations and Religious Discussions
Predestination and Free Will
Fourteenth Amendment and Citizenship Debate
