The Amazing Story of a New Bible Translation, the Release of Dr. Brown’s Latest Book, and Thoughts on World Events

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

[Download MP3]

Dr. Brown speaks with Daniah Greenberg, the visionary behind the new Messianic Bible translation, the Tree of Life version, shares some of the reaction to the release of his brand new book, Can You Be Gay and Christian?, and gives his insights on the crisis in Ukraine.  Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.

 

Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: The darker things get around us and our society, the more pronounced the Light will be! Let us let our light shine brightly!

 

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: In light of the return of Jesus, in our lifetime or not, let us live in anticipation and expectation that we will be changed and with Him forever!

 

SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY! 
This week, we’re offering two important resources from Dr. Brown, his brand new book, Can You Be Gay and Christian?, and his DVD debate with gay activist (and professing born-again Christian) Harry Knox. You can get both of these key resources for the super low price of just $25! Postage Paid! That’s a $15 savings!
Order Online!

 

Other Resources:

Stories to Stir Your Heart from Ukraine, England, and Mexico (and Some Election Insights)

An Outrageous Use of Scripture in a Gay Activist Editorial and the Not So Hidden Message of the X-Men Movies

Dr. Brown and Pastor Gino Geraci Discuss Myths and Facts About Bible Translations and Bible Interpretation

74 Comments
  1. Benjamin,

    Oops — I got you mixed up with Bo, who I answer incessantly but keeps accusing me of not answering him.

    Nevermind the PS.

  2. Bo said:
    >>This is not an answer. It is evading direct questions. None of the questions that I asked are in any way “how many angels can stand on the head of a pin” type questions.

    I explained this to you pretty clearly — since I don’t share your “proof texting” style of reading the bible, I can’t answer engage in your “how many angels dance on the head of a pin” questions.

    But I can’ engage with you one this level — I don’t think that the story of John the Baptist and Jesus in the womb were meant, by God, to settle the issue of abortion.

    Do you honestly believe abortion is the point of that story and not the divinity of Jesus Christ?

    If you want to discuss with me about the actual intended meaning of scripture, I can engage with me. Jesus is Lord. The Holy Spirit revealed that, even in the womb. It’s an amazing and beautiful story I would love to do a whole sermon on.

    But, if you want me to “proof text” the GOP Pro-Life platform, I can’t do that with you. I think it disrespects the scriptures.

  3. And, by the way, I learned my interpretation style at the fundamentalist bible school I attended.

    My teachers told us that we are to start with the intended meaning of scripture and read our own agenda into it.

    This is not a liberal or conservative way of reading the bible. It’s not even unique to the bible.

    It’s just good scholarship.

    And, to be clear, I am not against inferring things from the bible. I do it myself.

    But, this enters into personal opinion and does not have the weight of intended meaning of scripture

    And, I certainly don’t think your personal inferences from the bible should be enforced on women with the power of government.

  4. Oh, goodness:

    “My teachers told us that we are to start with the intended meaning of scripture and _NOT_ read our own agenda into it. “

  5. Greg,

    You do not answer my questions. You post something every once in a while, but the content usually has no direct answers. You did much better with Benjamin this time, though it just proves that you bow to culture instead of the writer of scripture. If you would just answer 5 simple questions directly (And none of them the are as you assert, questions akin to “How many angels can stand on the head of a pin”…they just will expose that you do not believe in the inspiration of scripture.) we could get to the bottom line of the difference between your view and mine. But your avoidance thus far shows that you are afraid to divulge this directly. So one more time, here are the questions:

    Greg I posted this above. Are you ignoring it?

    Greg,

    I am reposting here because seem to have moved on from the “old” threads.

    Greg,

    You did not answer post 70. I would like a point by point answer as the passage does speak to how early life begins. But if you are going to continue to evade and claim that the passage has no merit in knowing when life begins, just answer 5 questions:

    1. How close to conception was Mary when she was prophesied over by Elisabeth who called her a mother and the child in her womb master?
    (38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
    39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;)

    2. What percent of abortions happen after this point in the pregnancy today?

    3. Do you think that the Bible says that Elisabeth knew by revelation from the Holy Spirit that Mary was pregnant with Y’shua.?
    (40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
    41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
    42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
    43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?)

    4. Was it by the Holy Spirit that he was filled with while in the womb that John the Baptist knew?

    5. Should Mary have the right to get an abortion at this very early stage?

  6. Greg,

    If you want to, you do not have to answer questions 2 and 5 since we already know the answers to those from what you have posted before or from abortion statistics.

  7. VaIn asserts that I misquoted Gould. I did not. Gould was upset by the fact that his words were used by Creationists, but his words remain for us to read. He was an evolutionist, but he could not in good conscience go along with the notion of gradual evolutionary dogma…because there was so little, if any evidence for such a thing. He proposed the idea of “punctuated equilibrium” as a theory for the very reason that there is no abundance of transitional forms in the fossil record. His idea was that evolution happened very quickly then the organisms remained unchanged for a very long time until another very quick evolutionary event happened. He proposed this because there are no fossils that can be arranged into even a dashed line, let alone a smooth line, of transition. His words are telling and by 1980 much of his influence was felt in evolutionary circles.

    Below is a short section from an AIG article:

    “If the fossil evidence is as clear and simple as I’m suggesting it is, then even evolutionists would accept my description of the facts (even if they violently disagreed with my Biblical inferences), and they do. Leading evolutionists from around the world met for a major conference in Chicago in 1980. In chapter two, we discussed the “genetic conclusions” reached at that conference. Evolutionists at the Chicago conference also reached some remarkable conclusions about fossils.29,30 Without giving creationists any credit, the world’s leading evolutionists at that Chicago conference at least agreed on the same assessment of the fossil evidence reached (and predicted) by creationists long ago. As the summary in Newsweek put it:

    Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school.

    In building up to that monumental conclusion (which should be posted as a plaque in all the nation’s science classrooms), the writer starts with man:

    The missing link between man and the apes … is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule. … The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated. [emphasis added]

    The concept of evolution touted in textbooks, then, is based on phantoms and figments of the imagination, not on fossils and the facts of science. Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge31 put it this way: “Phyletic gradualism [gradual evolution] … was never ‘seen’ in the rocks…

    29. Adler, Jerry and John Carey. “Is Man a Subtle Accident?” Newsweek, November 3, 1980.
    30 Lewin, Roger. “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire.” Science, November 21, 1980.
    31. Gould, Stephen Jay and Niles Eldredge. “Punctuated Equilibria: the Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered.” Paleobiology, June/July 1977.”

    -http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/summary-fossil-kinds

  8. Greg, I believe you completely missed the points I was trying to get across in my post.

    “…are you “speculating” that the Mesopotamians had the story of Adam and Eve passed down to them through oral tradition?”

    I never made this claim. What I did say was that Adam and Eve passed down the institution of marriage to their children, and so forth on through down to the Mesopotamians. All people groups descent from Adam and Eve, and since God instituted marriage back in the beginning, His model is the perfect original, all others being good or faulty copies.

    “I choose to use the whole scripture, not just a single story in Genesis 1, as my model for biblical marriage.”

    Me too Greg, hence why I called you on your straw man argument in post #35. I even gave scripture refuting your straw man, Genesis 2:24.

    “When one uses the whole bible, it’s pretty clear that the Patriarch and biblical examples followed the larger society when it came to marriage. And I don’t see any indication that God had a problem with this…”

    Jesus had problems with it.

    Matthew 19:7-9 (New Revised Standard Version)

    7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?”

    8 He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

    9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”

    Jesus did not approve of societal norms and restored marriage to its intended state.

    ” …That marriage is nothing more than a man and a woman? Yes, if you dumb-down the definition of marriage to that bare minimum, then I suppose Genesis 1 can be used as the sole definition.”

    Greg, please keep in mind that we are discussing a particular aspect of marriage, ‘who the participants in marriage are, or meant to be’ so the above quoted straw man by you has no relevance. You are trying to shift to focus from who, to what. But that is not what we are discussing.

    “But, even then, do I have to marry a woman who is genetically identical to me?”

    Straw man ignoring my refutation in #35.

    “That marrying outside your gene pool is a sin?”
    Straw man.

    “No, the model of Adam and Eve is so singular, minimal and un-repeatable, it’s a absurd, almost laughable, model for marriage.

    We have so many biblical examples of marriage in the bible — I chose to use the ones that might apply to a world with more than one other person in it!”

    Its the base of the model Greg (Gen 2:24)
    24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

  9. The dishonest tactics of Answers in Genesis are well documented right here on the Internet. So Bo uses a completely discredited organization to make his point. Nothing changes the fact that Bo and AIG purposely and dishonestly misquote legitimate scientists to promote their ideology and religious superstitions.

    The fact remains that no Christian college or university with a science department teaches biblical creationism or Intelligent Design Magic and they never will. They have all been teaching evolutionary theory for over a hundred years now and will continue to do so for the next hundred years and beyond. That is unless the Christians and Muslims kill us all fighting over whose fairy tales we must believe. If evolutionary theory were not a valid well-established explanation for the diversity of life on Earth then we would surely hear about it from Christians colleges and university. But the silence is deafening especially for the creationists. So I challenge all creationists to pack up your creationist arguments and take them down to your local private Christians school of higher learning and insist they explain to you why they continue to distance themselves from creationism and creationists and continue to teach evolutionary theory. You won’t do that because you know very well that these Christians scientists will laugh in your faces and then tell you the truth about evolution and creationism. That is something you just can’t afford to listen to and still cling to your faith and you all KNOW it. The war on science s over and you Bible believers lost and lost badly. It’s not nice to try to fool Mother Nature or other people.

  10. And the documented quote-miner is still preaching to us all. Here we have Christian “ethics” and “morals” on full display for all to see. And you wonder why I hate religion.

  11. VaIn once again just produces rhetoric and insults. He gives no factual rebuttal at all. Vain is not a scientist. He probably spends most of his time in a locker room. I think I remember him saying he worked in the sports profession…or something like that. So it is not surprising that his rhetoric is about as intelligent as an 8th grade football team’s conduct in the locker room.

    But VaIn gives no facts about the subject. Instead, he tries to intimidate us with the idea that all the experts agree against us. The problem is that they do not. Gary Parker is an expert. He is the one that I quoted above. Go read the the whole article. It is very telling.

    What difference does it make if every scientist believes the exact same thing? (And they certainly do not.) Faith is faith. The facts are the facts. The interpretation of the facts on all sides stems from faith. Either you believe the religion of materialism or of creationism…there are no other choices. Either the billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth are the result of a lot of water all at once or a lot of time. Your religion will cause you to see the reason as the Biblical flood or the Big bang.

    The fossils do not speak. They do not come with labels. They do not show any transitional forms either. They are simply layer after layer of bones and shells and impressions and stains. And they are far from being proof of evolution.

    Read this:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/fossil-evidence-introduction

    And be sure to continue to click on “Chapter 3 The fossil evidence” to get to the each following section.

  12. VaIn,

    Who is the real quote miner? The following has been posted time after time and Van will still not either back up his assertion and rhetoric or admit his lie.

    Van,

    When are you going to stop dodging and man up and answer the charge that you lied and misrepresented Schweitzer? In case you and others have almost forgotten, here is a gentle reminder of the challenge:

    Why should anyone listen to you when you have been proven wrong and won’t admit it? Why should we listen to a troll?

    “troll
    One who posts a deliberately provocative message…with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.”- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

    When are you going to answer the charge that you took Scweitzer out of context? Did you do it intentionally or were you duped by someone and then just regurgitate the lie? At least admit that you were wrong, even if you won’t tell us your motive. Don’t dodge or ignore this if you are an honest man. To refresh you memory, here is the challenge:

    Below is one of many examples of Van’s deception technique. He has been asked repeatedly to either admit that he has posted false testimony or to produce verification of his assertion. After being called on the carpet, he conveniently ignores all rebuttals and continues to regurgitate deception mixed with a huge amount of rhetoric, vitriol and insult. He is not to be taken seriously as scholar or a commentator. He is a troll, and nothing more.

    Van wrote:
    “’There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give his work its final consecration, never had any existence.’ – Albert Scweitzer (1875-1965)

    You just accused Albert Schweitzer of being classless, unqualified, and simple minded. Par for the course for people who have no respect for intelligence and education.

    Many scholars have tried to find evidence from outside the Bible that Jesus really existed. They came up with nothing, absolutely nothing as Dr. Schweitzer said.

    You people have bought into all the lies of religion and then you repeat these lies without any hint of a conscience. Calling me a liar when all I do is speak the truth just shows how backward your evil religion really is.”

    Sheila responded:
    “Well, it’s a classic move by you to rip a quotation out of context. Who is it you’re listening to? It makes no sense for you to drop what you think is a bombshell when all you’ve done now is make yourself look more foolish because you never considered that Google just might have Schweitzer’s book on line.

    Anyone who cares to can read further down the chapter and see that Schweitzer was referring to the historic Jesus as He was portrayed by the modern theological historians of his own time. His thought was that “That” Jesus never existed… His point was that we end up molding Him according to our modern way of thinking categorically. We essentially risk minimizing the astonishing profundity of His teachings.

    This link begins with the quote you gave us and then explains exactly what Schweitzer was getting at. The man made the cross he wanted on his own grave, for Pete’s sake.
    http://books.google.com/books?id=uzRXxvPsylkC&pg=PA478#v=onepage&q&f=false

    To date, Van still ignores the proof of his irrelevancy. He continues to persecute in the only way he as power to do. That power, in this instance, being the grace of Dr. Brown. Be sure to thank YHWH that Van is not in any governmental position where his bigotry and prejudice can do more harm.

    2 Timothy 3
    12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
    13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
    14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
    15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
    16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

  13. VaIn,

    You also did not answer this:

    Now concerning your non-answer to Sheila.

    You wrote:
    ““…but there’s a clip with Ravi Zacarias in it where he expounds on the reality of moral absolutes…”

    Oh, I absolutely LOVE knocking down this stupid argument. Name something that is always wrong.”

    Sheila responded:
    “Let’s just start with rape, Van. It’s always wrong!”

    And you VaIn, did not show her how rape is not always wrong. You loose once again.

  14. VaIn wrote:
    “…but I happen to be involved in the sports world …”

    Just producing facts so VaIn cannot deny them. If VaIn could just produce more than rhetoric and insult, it would be good. But you know…that locker room thing just may have ruined him for it.

  15. To make it easier for others, could everyone please try to identify who it is (on this blog) you’re quoting or just give the post number.

    Thanks! It’s hard to follow otherwise when you’ve missed a few days reading it.

    Van, I’ll try to get back to you later tonight or tomorrow on the other forum.

  16. VAin is just like that intellectual terrorist that was on Amazon dinging Michael Brown’s latest book. These guys are out to throw rocks, you can not reason with them. They are confirming we are doing the right thing, beliveing the right things. The VAin’s of the world are not interested in learning, they are not interested in truth. They can not answer your question’s Bo..

  17. Greg,

    How about one at time:

    Luke 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
    39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country WITH HASTE, into a city of Juda;
    40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
    41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
    42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
    43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

    1. How close to the time of Messaiah’s conception do you think Mary was when she was prophesied over by Elisabeth who called her a mother and the child in her womb master?

    If you do not want to place an exact time on it, how about a range. 1 to 5 days? 6 to 12 days? Two or thee weeks? A month or two?

  18. Van, 1 866 34 TRUTH
    Call today!

    > This show rips truth completely away from the realm of fact and then redefines it as the host’s particular interpretation of the Bible. That isn’t the truth according to me or anyone else except for a very small and increasing insignificant minority.

    Bo you tried to make it look like Stephen Gould said there we no transition species. That is the same as lying. Don’t bother addressing anymore of your preaching to me. I won’t be reading it.

  19. VaIn,

    You still have not answered Sheila about your lie. You still have not lived up to your challenge that she called you on. I will continue to post and you can continue to act like an immature adolescent prig if you like. It would be better if you just would honestly answer and admit when you are wrong and cut the rhetoric.

  20. VaIn,

    Here is little reminder for you:

    You also did not answer this:

    Now concerning your non-answer to Sheila.

    You wrote:
    ““…but there’s a clip with Ravi Zacarias in it where he expounds on the reality of moral absolutes…”

    Oh, I absolutely LOVE knocking down this stupid argument. Name something that is always wrong.”

    Sheila responded:
    “Let’s just start with rape, Van. It’s always wrong!”

    And you VaIn, did not show her how rape is not always wrong. You loose once again.
    Bo

  21. Vain,

    And one more that shows that you are the one that lied:

    Who is the real quote miner? The following has been posted time after time and Van will still not either back up his assertion and rhetoric or admit his lie.

    Van,

    When are you going to stop dodging and man up and answer the charge that you lied and misrepresented Schweitzer? In case you and others have almost forgotten, here is a gentle reminder of the challenge:

    Why should anyone listen to you when you have been proven wrong and won’t admit it? Why should we listen to a troll?

    “troll
    One who posts a deliberately provocative message…with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.”- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

    When are you going to answer the charge that you took Scweitzer out of context? Did you do it intentionally or were you duped by someone and then just regurgitate the lie? At least admit that you were wrong, even if you won’t tell us your motive. Don’t dodge or ignore this if you are an honest man. To refresh you memory, here is the challenge:

    Below is one of many examples of Van’s deception technique. He has been asked repeatedly to either admit that he has posted false testimony or to produce verification of his assertion. After being called on the carpet, he conveniently ignores all rebuttals and continues to regurgitate deception mixed with a huge amount of rhetoric, vitriol and insult. He is not to be taken seriously as scholar or a commentator. He is a troll, and nothing more.

    Van wrote:
    “’There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give his work its final consecration, never had any existence.’ – Albert Scweitzer (1875-1965)

    You just accused Albert Schweitzer of being classless, unqualified, and simple minded. Par for the course for people who have no respect for intelligence and education.

    Many scholars have tried to find evidence from outside the Bible that Jesus really existed. They came up with nothing, absolutely nothing as Dr. Schweitzer said.

    You people have bought into all the lies of religion and then you repeat these lies without any hint of a conscience. Calling me a liar when all I do is speak the truth just shows how backward your evil religion really is.”

    Sheila responded:
    “Well, it’s a classic move by you to rip a quotation out of context. Who is it you’re listening to? It makes no sense for you to drop what you think is a bombshell when all you’ve done now is make yourself look more foolish because you never considered that Google just might have Schweitzer’s book on line.

    Anyone who cares to can read further down the chapter and see that Schweitzer was referring to the historic Jesus as He was portrayed by the modern theological historians of his own time. His thought was that “That” Jesus never existed… His point was that we end up molding Him according to our modern way of thinking categorically. We essentially risk minimizing the astonishing profundity of His teachings.

    This link begins with the quote you gave us and then explains exactly what Schweitzer was getting at. The man made the cross he wanted on his own grave, for Pete’s sake.
    http://books.google.com/books?id=uzRXxvPsylkC&pg=PA478#v=onepage&q&f=false

    To date, Van still ignores the proof of his irrelevancy. He continues to persecute in the only way he as power to do. That power, in this instance, being the grace of Dr. Brown. Be sure to thank YHWH that Van is not in any governmental position where his bigotry and prejudice can do more harm.

    2 Timothy 3
    12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
    13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
    14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
    15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
    16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

  22. vaIn,

    Your post
    > This show rips truth completely away from the realm of fact and then redefines it as the host’s particular interpretation of the Bible. That isn’t the truth according to me or anyone else except for a very small and increasing insignificant minority.

    Call in and please expose this on the air!

    866 34 TRUTH
    Or just post another vaIn post.

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*