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:
A new Bible translation is exciting? Books on modern science are a whole lot more interesting than a reprint of ancient fairy tales. Of course Bible believers hate science because it proves their new translations are completely worthless. Welcome to the new day….
Dr. Brown,
A word to the wise: you sounded obsessed and a little creepy about the gays today.
As long-time listener, I know you differently, but you had a bit of a Ted Haggard vibe going on.
Before you dismiss me as anti-Jesus or something, go back and objectively listen to your tone in the first hour. I doubt I’m the only one who thought you sounded like one of those soon-to-be-disgraced “Family Values” Conservative which are now a fully-entrenched stereotype of the Religious Right.
Van said,
>> Bible believers hate science
This is just stupid bigotry.
Anyone who hangs out with real scientists knows that a number are Christian. One can easily love the bible and and believe in science. (that would include me.)
But, bigotry makes one so stupid they might totally miss this obvious reality.
Bigots are _not_ stupid because of low IQs It’s that bigots filter the facts through their bigoted filter and end up the dumber for it.
You for instance — you strike me as a pretty smart guy. But you seem as stuck understanding religion as a chimp trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. (and I don’t mean believing in religion. I mean simply understanding it.)
Van your reply is inconsequential. I saw that you replied and wanted to see what the little hermit crab would kick up. Do you have anything better than that? Do you have any knowledge to impart, or do you just throw sand? silly miniVan.
Regarding marriage, Dr. Brown treats something as established “fact” which is actually quite dubious.
It’s the claim that God defines marriage rather than society. And not just any god but specifically the Judeo-Christian God.
This is a pretty hard claim to make historically.
Many historians would note that marriage is fundamentally a _societal_ institution and certainly not created or defined by Judaism and Christianity.
Without even trying very hard, one can think of many non-Christian societies that have long-established, clearly-defined definitions of marriage.
Greg? Were these societal definitions of marriage by several societies before God married Adam to Eve?
Benjamin,
Your bible has a marriage ceremony between Adam and Eve? You must be reading Dr. Brown’s exciting new translation! Did they date first? Was it exclusive or did they see others?
Seriously… the “definition” of marriage in the Old Testament is indistinguishable from Mesopotamian marriage law. (from what I’ve ready, anyway.)
Of course Greg, because the Mesopotamians got their traditions from the example of Adam and Eve.
And yes Greg, God gave Eve to Adam (Gen 2:18,24; Gen 3:17; Gen 4:1)
So, the biblical definition of marriage is that God gives a woman to man?
I gotta tell my wife that! She had no choice in the matter!
The story of Adam and Eve is not a definition of marriage.
It’s funny just to think about! How many dates did it take before Adam knew that Eve was “the one”? 😉
Once again, you are misusing the bible to serve your conservative agenda.
Then please exegete those verses Greg. God himself calls Eve Adam’s “Wife” in Genesis 3:17.
Benjamin,
>>Of course Greg, because the Mesopotamians got their traditions from the example of Adam and Eve.
Do you have any shred of evidence that the Mesopotamians were aware of the Adam and Eve story? Or are you just making history up?
This is a serious question — I’ll admit that I’m quickly getting about of my expertise when I speak of Mesopotamian.
But I’ve read a few things and I don’t remember the Mesopotamian creation mythology having Adam and Eve. Wasn’t Gilgamesh somehow involved?
Do you know better or are you just making stuff up?
Benjamin,
OK, I’ll stop teasing you.
Yes, in the Pentateuch, Adam and Eve are portrayed as the first couple. I’ll concede that.
But it’s absurd to use Genesis as a model for marriage unless you are alone on an island and God beams you down a woman!
In the scholarly books I’ve read, the Patriarchs are generally used as the earliest models for marriage. While not a true definition for marriage, those stories provide a lot of clues about what marriage was like back then.
Then, of course, we have the Song of Solomon and Levitical law. I’m sure scholars use more.
Based on this, many historians conclude that early Jewish marriage was not particularly different than the surrounding culture.
In other words — what I said in my original post on this subject — marriage is a societal institution.
… I should be more clear: Genesis 1 as a definition for marriage.
As for “definitions” of Old Testament marriage, I should have also including Ruth because of its early date and tender story.
(And, for another model from the earliest Jewish traditions, we have Hosea. Yikes!)
As an aside, I think it is a misnomer to call any of these “definitions” of marriage. They are descriptions, models or exemplars of marriage.
The actual definition of marriage was to be found outside the bible, in the larger culture.
Greg, God has defined marriage from the beginning as a covenant he has ordained between one man and one woman.
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?
Greg, and Benjamin, Didn’t Jesus address this question somewhat indirectly in his answer to the question of divorce? He said beginning in Matthew 19:4 “Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh, What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” To me, this echoes the importance of unity in marriage and also lays out the guidelines of the purest intimate partnership in God’s sight being between one man and one woman.
Greg, when was the first time the very first cells divided and began to multiply in a human body, and what event marked the beginning of that process?
Find your answer to that and I believe you should be able to decide if a human life had already started that early on.
It’s so simple.
Short Quiz
Choose the best answer.
When does life really begin?
a. at 40.
b. college graduation.
c. at birth.
d. at conception in the womb.
Ray,
You forgot the E. Bat Mitzva
Greg,
I just spotted your comment, above (#2), and I’d encourage you to keep ugly judgments like that to yourself. It only makes you look even less credible.
What is creepy is the bizarre nature of the attacks that come against us when we stand for biblical morality and truth, but it is to be expected.
So, as you said to me, I say to you: A word to the wise. Keep this to yourself. (And please, let’s drop it right here.)
“Anyone who hangs out with real scientists knows that a number are Christian. One can easily love the bible and and believe in science. (that would include me.)”
> You either have to twist science, the Bible or both to accept them both. Evolutionary Theory cannot be reconciled with the Bible. Yet every Christian college and university teaches it. So there is a big difference between calling yourself a Christian and being a Bible believer. I always distinguish between the two. It’s ironic having a religious person telling an atheist they don’t understand religion. Really. We atheists know enough about religion not to buy into its lies, nonsense and pie-in-the-sky-promises.
Greg,
I think what you did was accuse Dr. Brown of gaycism. I think I have coined a new expression. Or has someone already thought of that? Gaycism.
Hey Van I’m getting pretty tired of your Arrogant
Comments. Your the one who believes in fairy tails
like Evolution that say’s fish grew legs and turned
into reptiles, then reptiles grew wings and turned into Birds, then a dog went into the sea and turned
into a Whale. You got any Observable Evidence for that? I would love to see it. Good luck finding any.
Dr. Brown:
>>I just spotted your comment, above (#2), and I’d encourage you to keep ugly judgments like that to yourself. It only makes you look even less credible.
It was a word to the wise — not an ugly judgment.
I thought you might want to know how you were coming across on the radio today.
But, I’ll drop it, as you ask.
Van, do you believe some of the rain evolved into giving the earth it’s dew, and that the sun and the earth by themselves simply evolved into giving us night and day?
I say No. That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of this works.
All these things were made by God. That’s why there is so much good all around us.
Dr Brown! Is this new bible translation going to be available on Amazon to purchase?
Sincerely Magnus
Van said:
>>> You either have to twist science, the Bible or both to accept them both.
I have been trying to understand why you debate here — and, I gotta say, this sentence explained a lot. You are a fundamentalist!
This is EXACTLY the same thing that the Christian fundamentalists tell me – all the time. Not similar — EXACTLY the same worldview.
I get it now. When you debate the guys here, I’m watching an inter-fundamentalist debate — between an atheist fundamentalist and Christian fundamentalists.
>>Van
>> I think what you did was accuse Dr. Brown of gaycism.
If you read my post, I wasn’t accusing him of anything.
I was informing him that his tone, in the first hour, sounded, well, like a certain stereotype.
(I won’t get more specific because I said I would drop it.)
I will address this issue more generally and not at Dr. Brown.
The anti-gay Christian lobby has a very difficult messaging problem.
Increasingly, Americans think that confident, straight guys don’t fixate on the gays.
Couple this with the steady stream of “pro-family” conservative Christians and politicians who got found leading creepy double lives, often gay.
It has created a presumption that many in the anti-gay lobby are just working out their personal demons in public and the gays are getting hurt in the process.
Obviously this creates a messaging problem for the conservative movement. (not just Dr. Brown.)
As soon as someone publishes an anti-gay book or proposes “protection of marriage” legislation, many in the public start wondering on how long until he ends up at an uncomfortable press conference with his dutiful wife at his side.
So, conservative Christians would be really wise to listen to their tone on the issue.
Greg, so are you against the gay agenda now?
>> It’s ironic having a religious person telling an atheist they don’t understand religion.
I will concede that many atheists know _about_ religion better than many religious do.
This is different than understanding it.
You see this difference — all the time — with other topics.
For example — I know people who know every detail about the Grateful Dead. More than the band members themselves! (I’ve seen this personally)
But, those same people couldn’t pick up a guitar and play a Grateful Dead song if their live depended on it. On the level that matters, they don’t have it.
That’s how atheists are about religion — you’re not in band. You don’t get it.
>> Really. We atheists know enough about religion not to buy into its lies, nonsense and pie-in-the-sky-promises.
And you just illustrated my point — the bigotry you revealed in the second have of this sentence is why you can “know about” religion but not understand it.
And, after all these posts I’ve read of yours — I would say that you deeply misunderstand religion.
(And, to be fair, many Christians have the reverse problem with understanding atheists. I would not put myself in that category but I’ll let others be the judge of that.)
And, to be clear, I don’t say this about all atheists. Some do understand religion, even when they don’t believe in it.
I would cite Harold Bloom as a guy who seems to understand religion while not believing it. (I think he has called himself a “stone cold atheist.)
You may consider reading him, if you have an open mind, at all, about religion. About a year ago, I read his commentary on the biblical writer “J” and it was remarkably insightful, even for a Bible believer like me.
I really need to correct this:
>>That’s how _some_ atheists are about religion — you’re not in band. You don’t get it.
As I clearly said later, some atheists do understand religion.
Van, I copied this from a yahoo story for you just this morning see below. Archeology 101 for the Van man. David and the fairy tail city of zion, is it fairy tale or is it tail?? hah you decide which tail to pin to the donkey.
“This is the citadel of King David, this is the Citadel of Zion, and this is what King David took from the Jebusites,” said Shukron, who said he recently left Israel’s Antiquities Authority to work as a lecturer and tour guide. “The whole site we can compare to the Bible perfectly.”
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?
Greg,
Sorry for not responding sooner, I was out yesterday with a case of food poisoning.
“Do you know better or are you just making stuff up?”
I know Greg. Do you believe Adam and Eve were the first two of Mankind on the planet? And seeing that God calls Eve Adam’s wife, it would mean they were the first two ever married and thus was defined by God. They passed this knowledge onto their children, then on to their children and so on. And some of their descendants came to be known as Mesopotamians.
“The actual definition of marriage was to be found outside the bible, in the larger culture.”
It was not so from the beginning Greg. Only after mankind moved away from God through idol worship etc, did they begin to move away from the model set forth by God in Adam and Eve.
“Yes, in the Pentateuch, Adam and Eve are portrayed as the first couple. I’ll concede that.”
What is being conceded here? Portrayed is the word that concerns me. Were they only portrayed as being married? Or actually married in your opinion?
“But it’s absurd to use Genesis as a model for marriage unless you are alone on an island and God beams you down a woman!”
Why is this Greg? Is it because you don’t like the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman?
And it seems your hung up on the straw man you keep throwing out there that the definition of marriage is God giving man a woman, missing the whole point of the text. You have to remember that Adam was the only man on the planet, and God created Eve specially for Adam. So yes, God did give Adam a wife, but that’s not the definition, the definition is given in Genesis 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.
Always love Daniah’s enthusiasm but what people need to know, which was NOT stated in the interview is that the Tree of Life version is a completely NEW translation, vetted, and that all those scholars mentioned on the air pooled efforts to produce something unique-a fully vetted and completely new translation, not a paraphrase, and not a rework of some other version! This is the first English translation of the original Hebrew and Greek texts, done largely by Jewish believers, since ?? ever!
Bo, I am going to answer question number 5 just because I like test questions.
5. Of course not- This question really highlights the loonie secular mind set. Most of us have to realise that our parents had the right to abort us not too long ago. Greg, your liberal strain has taken over your brain.
When I was 17, my Dad always said he wished they would raise the legal abortion age to 18 years. 😛
(jokingly of course being one of the most God fearing men I know)
“You got any Observable Evidence for that? I would love to see it. Good luck finding any.”
Not for your ridiculous notions of what evolution is I don’t. The evidence is in the fossil record and in science museums all over the world. And what’s so hilarious about your argument is that every Christians college and university agrees with me and the scientists there want nothing to do with creationism magic or Intelligent Design Magic and go to great lengths to distance themselves from those things and the people who believe those things, like you for example. So who should we listen to? Christian academics and scientists or he Bible thumpers who deny what they have been teaching for over a hundred years. Man I couldn’t buy this kind of entertainment!
“This is the citadel of King David, this is the Citadel of Zion, and this is what King David took from the Jebusites,” said Shukron, who said he recently left Israel’s Antiquities Authority to work as a lecturer and tour guide. “The whole site we can compare to the Bible perfectly.”
> Of course I wouldn’t expect you to give the other side of the story. So we’ll just let the archaeologist who worked with Shukron tell us what you were not honest and forthright enough to:
“Reich said it was not possible to reach definitive conclusions about biblical connections without more direct archaeological evidence.”
“The connection between archaeology and the Bible has become very, very problematic in recent years,” Reich said.
After centuries of unearthing nothing you people are just grasping for straws now.
Greg,
You wrote,
“I avoid the “how many angels can stand on the head of a pin” style of exegetical bickering.
I think it is very poor hermeneutics to parse sch details from a story that was never meant to be read that way.
I don’t think the authors of the bible ever meant it to be a pregnancy manual.
I respect your right to not have an abortion based on what you infer from the bible.
Similarly, I respect a woman’s right to infer differently and make her own health decisions. I certainly don’t support enforcing your biblical hermeneutics with the power of government.”
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. They are real questions about the text. Try having a little more intellectual honesty and Christian charity. Show us why the verses that I quoted and commented on and asked direct questions concerning support your view. If you will not try then just admit that you do not care what scripture says about the topic.
Van, your hilarious! That was a yahoo story.
Hi Marcus, you asked where the TLV verion is available. If you have any mobile devices (like an iPad), the Bible app (the popular one, not sure its exact name, brown bible icon) has it already for free! I’ve used it there multiple times.
VaIn wrote:
“The evidence is in the fossil record and in science museums all over the world.”
Dr. Steven Gould wrote:
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”-Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119–130 (p.127), 1980.
I have a funny feeling that Dr. Gould would know more about fossils than VaIn.
Gould received a doctorate in paleontology from Columbia University and then taught at Harvard. VaIn just spouts unproven assertions.
Jon,
I’m not sure what Yahoo has to do with anything. Nothing changes the fact that no one who worked with this guy agrees with his conclusions and you failed to mention that. Let me know when you find a real archaeologist who agrees with Surkon’s conclusions. This guy is part of a sketchy Jewish Nationalistic organization that is constantly trying to prove some historical connection between the Jewish people and Palestine. Go ahead put your trust in people with political and religious agendas. But don’t expect rational people to join you.
I listened to the first hour, this is an utterly baseless claim. The only possible words or tone that could fit this description was Michael’s *citations* of *others* viciously attacking him and his character. If you want to make a claim like this, put the citation or give the minute mark… the audio player is right above in this page.
It’s always amazing that creationists have the nerve to quote-mine Stephen Jay Gould. Anyone can look up say the Quote-Mine Project and see all kinds of examples of creationists who have dishonestly taken statements out of context by scientists to make it seem like they have said something negative about evolutionary theory or some other avenue of science when the opposite is true. This site and others document the dishonest tactics of creationist spokesmen and anyone can verify this for themselves. Welcome to the Age of Information creationists. This kind of stuff is what is so absolutely disgusts me about religion. Quote-mining is the same as lying. Bo has taken a quote by Stephen Gould out of context and anyone can look up the entire quote and see just how dishonest this is. Not only that we have Stephen Jay Gould’s response to the way creationists have misquoted him:
“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.” – Stephen Jay Gould
So Bo misquoted Stephen Jay Gould and we have Gould’s own words telling us what he thinks of creationists like Bo who through design or the other reason Gould gave dishonestly misquote him. What about it Bo? Did you purposely misrepresent what Stephen Jay Gould said, or was it all just a big mistake? You tried to give the impression that Gould said there were no transitional fossils and just the opposite is true. This is giving a false impression on purpose, the same as lying. Yet you get on this site and preach and moralize like you’re some kind of paragon of virtue. Well this stunt is anything but virtuous and it’s disrespectful to the deceased man and great scientist you defamed. I’m glad you did this. Now you’ve got no business accusing me of anything.
Let’s see I have Jon telling me about one part of a story and leaving out the part that argues against his position. I have Bo giving me only one part of a quotation to try to give the false impression that Stephen Jay Gould said there were no transitional species when anyone can read the whole quote and see the opposite is true. These kinds of tactics are dishonest. Again, this kind of stuff is what really turns me off about religion.
Matthew,
Jesus’ teaching on divorce is unequivocal about the wrongness of divorce and remarrige.
But, most Christians — including Dr. Brown — have a nuanced view of it, allowing for individual Christians to decide how that applies in a 21st Century context.
I agree with this — both marriage and divorce are radically different now than they were 2000 years ago. It would be a mis-application of the bible to just enforce Matth. 19 on modern couples without any adjustment for modern society.
Yet, these same Christians take an _INFERENCE_ from Matt 19 and apply it without it adaptation, nuance or mercy on gay couples.
Even though, clearly, what it means to be gay is VERY DIFFERENT now than it was 2000 years ago.
Benjamin wrote:
>> Sorry for not responding sooner, I was out yesterday with a case of food poisoning.
No problems. I hope you feel better. When I was a missionary, I had food poisoning more times than I can recall, a couple of times gravely, so I have special sympathy for that. It’s horrid.
>>>> “Do you know better or are you just making stuff up?”
>>I know Greg. Do you believe Adam and Eve were the first two of Mankind on the planet? And seeing that God calls Eve Adam’s wife, it would mean they were the first two ever married and thus was defined by God. They passed this knowledge onto their children, then on to their children and so on. And some of their descendants came to be known as Mesopotamians.
No offense, but your “I know” makes it really hard to discuss with you. Do you “know” or are you “speculating” that the Mesopotamians had the story of Adam and Eve passed down to them through oral tradition?
I have a vague recollection of learning about Mesopotamian creation mythology and I though it centered around Gilgamesh or something.
We can only have an honest discussion if you admit when you have evidence and when you are just speculating.
>>>> “The actual definition of marriage was to be found outside the bible, in the larger culture.”
>> It was not so from the beginning Greg. Only after mankind moved away from God through idol worship etc, did they begin to move away from the model set forth by God in Adam and Eve.
I choose to use the whole scripture, not just a single story in Genesis 1, as my model for biblical marriage.
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 — with some exceptions. (like worshiping your wives’ foreign gods.)
During the inter-testamental period, Jews and then Christians adopted the Greco-Roman definition of marriage modified to rural life.
>>>> “But it’s absurd to use Genesis as a model for marriage unless you are alone on an island and God beams you down a woman!”
>>Why is this Greg? Is it because you don’t like the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman?
Is that what you are suggestion? 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.
But, even then, do I have to marry a woman who is genetically identical to me?
For example, co-sanquination has always been a hugely debated and important question in the definition of marriage. What can we learn from Genesis 1 about that? That marrying outside your gene pool is a sin?
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!
– – – – –
Now, I have answered you at length — point by point. In full honestly (So much so, that I have run out of time to answer other people.) If you keep accusing me of dodging your questions, I’m wondering if we should just end this discussion here.