Dr. Brown Answers Your Questions

[Download MP3]

On the show today, Dr. Brown will take your calls and answer these questions: Does 2 Timothy 3:16 apply to the New Testament writings? What is Dr. Brown’s take on the KJV only controversy? 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: Let us fully pursue holiness as we fully flee from that which is unclean, defiling, and destructive.

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: As we think of the woman who wept over Jesus’ feet and dried His feet with her hair, it’s a sign of complete surrender, sacrifice, and devotion. May we live it out daily.


This week, Dr. Brown is offering Go and Sin No More [Book] and get the complete audio teaching series [via direct download] for free. For a limited time you can get these two life changing resources for only $20 postage paid! Order Online Here!

Other Resources:

Dr. Brown Interviews Prof. Robert Gagnon on the Bible, Homosexuality, and Counterfeit Grace

The Dangers of Unbiblical Thinking, Answers to Your Questions, and Thoughts on Choosing a Bible Translation

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

  1. A caller called in asking about the Greek term “pornea”. Dr. Brown clarified that having sex before marriage is “pornea”.

    The ancient Pharisees ruled likewise under the Scripture verse, “do not treat the daughter’s of Jerusalem as harlots”.

    A harlot or prostitute is one you have sex with without marriage.

    The ancient Pharisees ruled a minor clause concerning this.

    If you make the blessing, “Blessed are you Lord King of the Universe that sanctifies us with His commandments and has commanded us concerning the “kidushin”.

    Once saying this blessing then immediate sexual intercourse finalizes the marriage.

    Thus this type of sexual intercourse is not before marriage but is the beginning of marriage and would not be “pornea” to ancient Pharisees.

    The ancient Pharisees also frowned on this type of beginning a marriage but allowed it.

    A marriage to the ancient Pharisees was not seen as a ceremony or a wedding as Adam and Eve were married without this. Rebekah and Isaac were married without a ceremony as it says, “Isaac took Rebekah into his tent and knew her”.

    However this type of entering into a marriage is not what is taking place in modern society. People are treating each other as harlots, sleeping with each other without any commencement of marriage.

    Lastly, though I disagree with one of my rabbis in Jerusalem, he taught that marriage is a Jewish concept and that Gentiles are not bound to this, thus G-d will be merciful with the Gentiles since marriage does not apply to them. I argued with my rabbi for five minutes on this.

    I have to say that the punishment for treating a woman as a prostitute was a minor punishment of paying the father of a girl money, with I think also the man receiving lashes. Adultery in comparison was punished with a far greater punishment, death to the constituents.

    Though many Christians say all sins are the same, all would have to agree that, not all sins receive the same punishment.

    The punishment of sins reveal the degree of G-d’s evaluation of different sins.

    If I was G-d fearing I would prioritize staying away from the sins with the greatest punishments and work my way back to staying away from the sins with the lesser punishments.

    I have to add that according to current Pharisees, it is frowned upon to get married with sexual intercourse commencement but it was allowed in ancient Pharisee laws in Ancient Israel.

    But as I said before, this clause is not based on man made logic but on the accounts of the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah and Adam and Eve.

  2. Eliyahu, interesting to hear about the history behind this. Thanks.

    I would have loved to hear your 5 minute dialogue with your rabbi in Jerusalem. Adam and Eve were not Jews, yet they were married. Noah and his sons had wives and they were not Jews. Abraham was married before he fathered the Jewish nation. It would be great to hear his line of reasoning to state that it was purely a Jewish concept.

  3. A wise elder of mine, late 50’s, took this Korean ‘era Vet’ aside (before Nam ‘era service’) making clear NEW Testament was provably (taking great length) explaining it’s full completion far ‘earlier’, rather than any far, near ‘later’ then being insisted upon by certain ‘theologins’ continuing further and further extention of New Testament ‘when written’ dates. When Paul wrote exhortation to ‘youthful’ Timothy (about ‘end times’) for his ‘edification’, in the recorded, INSPIRED ‘Second’ Letter, to this ‘youthful one’. Scriptures, for to make one ‘up to date wise’, even unto seeking a ‘perfection’ in much needed wisdom, especially in their ‘end times’, even for him, as to all that he had available to him as a ‘youth’, from his ‘youth’ which could only have been very ‘few’ years for this hopeful, newly understudy of Paul, whom Paul, as a ‘youth’ was under ‘Gamaliel’s School’, but the Scriptures available then, certainly did not bring Paul anywhere near ‘perfection’, nor ‘wise’ beyond his ‘youth’, in fact just the opposite. We can only conclude, not only WAS what we now have of ‘compiling’, including all those of Paul’s letters, already kept for study as INSPIRED, but also the letters of John, including his first INSPIRED Book when written, but LAST in the final compiling, which tells us not only of how the NEW became “verified” as INSPIRED, by an angel, to 7 angels of seven ‘Menorah’ Churches (Jews), but also the ‘fellow servant’ who came to him on ‘Patmos’ will “in this manner (even so) come again quickly, or ‘soon’, suddenly as came to him on Patmos Isle. Even “so” (in this same manner) come quickly, Lord Jesus (for John believed he would outlive his older brother, but instead of encouragement re: James, for to live a long life, the Book includes, the mention of somewhat praise over somewhat recent ‘martyr’ under the recent then ‘Governor’, over Galilee, before it had a ‘King’ takeover of all that region included).

  4. Benjamin and Eliyahu,

    Pornea is sex before marriage, then Messiah did not allow divorce and remarriage for adultery. The exception clause was for finding out that the girl had been defiled before marriage. Adultery is not grounds for divorce but only fornication, which is before marriage, is.

    Mt 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.


  5. Dr. Brown,
    Doesn’t Jesus address masturbation in Mt 5 when he says to cut your hand off if it makes you stumble–especially seeing it is mentioned in the context of lusting in one’s heart?

  6. Daniel,

    It is a Hebrew idiom. Plucking out your eye means to stop seeing a person…stop hanging out with them. Cutting off you hand means to stop having fellowship or relationship with them. Cutting off your foot means to stop going somewhere.

    This is in reference to those that cause little ones to stumble.

    Mt 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

    The context of Matthew 5 is lust in general and remarriage in specific. A divorced woman is actually another man’s wife. It is wrong to tempt yourself by staying in the relationship/fellowship of a divorced woman that you have “married.” It is wrong to tempt yourself with seeing her.

  7. I don’t remember ever hearing anyone say that the King James Version is the only correct version, or that it’s the only one the Church as a whole should use, or anything like that.

    The closest thing to that is what I heard an elderly pastor say. He said he uses the King James Version because it’s the only one he understands.

  8. When I look up the meanings of both the words “kill” and “murder”, I think I see the reason the KJV says “kill” rather than murder.

  9. Two hands, just one hand, two feet, just one foot, but can see in Hell (with one, or both eyes plucked out) speaks of ‘natural inner soul’ NOW WITHIN HIDDEN body(that which Peter said “thou will not leave”, HIS “SOUL” in Hell, Hades, first Sermon by Holy Spirit ‘of Promise’). What is ‘cut off’, ‘plucked out’ Biblically, now ‘hidden within’ natural “living” on “SOUL” (‘body’). Paul wrote by Holy Spirit upon him, there is (NOW) both a ‘natural body’ and a ‘spiritual body’ within (temporarily outwardly ‘clothed’ with magnificent, but temporal only fragile ‘tent’, ‘outer’, temporal only blood, bones, traveling ‘dust’ back unto ‘dust’, within ‘dust’, seen, touched, felt, bleed, show wear, tear, can sweat drops of blood outer ‘skin’,
    temporarily ONLY can be healed, resuscitate, lay outer ‘tabernacle’ down, ONLY ONE HAD PERMISSION to ‘take it back up again’, in same flesh, as was laid down voluntarily) however the hidden within SOUL ‘body’ having it’s own voice, legs, arms, eyes, can be escorted by angels, or a demon, or demons ‘away’ FROM the outer ‘tent’ (far from outer tabernacle, ‘outer’ cannot travel beyond limitations of this ‘dust’, to ‘dust’) HADES being a potential destination beyond this ‘dust’, AWAY from outer only hands, feet, eyes, ET AL. alternate destination being ‘awaiting chambers’, temporarily away from any ‘outer tent’, unto NEXT life, UNTIL ‘each’, in their ‘own order’ WILL experience “resurrection” of the “FLESH”, next life FROM this dust, again same ‘hidden within’ natural living soul BODY, and ‘spiritual BODY’ within (temporal again next life in same ‘dna’, different ‘dust’, but some with resumption of life, not yet everything ‘within’, not as yet SOUL ‘plucked out’, nor ‘cut off’, NOR MAIMED, which CAUSED offenses past, instead unto ‘eternal damnation’ of the ‘resurrected’ (Daniel, also told ‘his lot’, in these last of last days OF RESURRECTION life, new dust, in temporal FLESH’)

  10. Ray,

    You are correct. Kill in the KJV means murder. It’s the way language was used in that day.

    Many of the other word objections raised on the show today also do not hold up when you understand the language of the day. Such as meat in the KJV. Meat did not mean flesh all the time. Meat was used of all foods. Genesis 1:29-30 are a good example.

    29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

    30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

    The KJV was not intending the reader to think that this vegetation was actually flesh. It’s just older English and meat meant “food”.

    Some of the words raised were valid. But over all I believe the KJV is the most accurate. I am not a KJV only’ist, but it is my primary Bible along with the ASV, ESV, and others which I will check periodically. Now Mike has me curious about the new MEV.

  11. My 1599 Geneva says “Thou shalt not kill.” (Deut 5:17)

    “Kill” seems to be the broader term. A lion may never be a giraffe, but killing might be murder.

  12. But ‘murder’ might not be ‘justified’ killing (as in self defense, not premeditated, but we can agree ‘murder’ might be hid in ‘stand your ground’ laws)

  13. I believe the law was written in such a way that spiritual discernment would be an absolute requirement and that sometimes these things are not so easy.

  14. I think about those Westerns where the professional gunfighter picks a fight and since it was a “fair” gunfight on the open streets, the gunfighter waiting until the ranch hand or farmer draws first….well, it might appear to be justified, but there’s more to it isn’t there?

    In such a situation, would we say the gunfighter killed the man, or would we say he murdered him?

    I suppose we can say he killed him and was guilty of murder, though we might not get a judge in that town to agree with us.

  15. I hope I’m not posting too often here but there is something I’d like to bring up here for the benefit of all.

    It’s impossible for me to combine everything into one post, as some of this had not come to me yet, but here it is:

    Let’s consider that God is against gun fighting on the streets. Fair enough?

    So which command would be more clear to address this matter, “Thou shalt not kill.” or “Thou shalt not murder.”?

    Because of these kind of things that can come up in life, I think I can see why many Bibles say, “Thou shalt not kill.” , knowing of course that we are to be discerning, and to seek what the will of the Lord is when he says something, and that it means what it means to him, and that it’s up to us to search diligently as to what that might be.

  16. “thou shalt not murder” ! Obedience in this, or any other interpretation aka: ‘kill’, etc., etal, cannot save us, NOT ‘NOW’ WHAT IS SAVING US (our salvation ‘NOW’, NOT washing away of filth of the ‘flesh’) our resurrection from here, leaving behind our OUTER TENT of initial ONLY, from Adam temporal ‘flesh’, already guaranteed for all (exception being ‘twice born’, NOW ‘twice dead’, plucked up by ‘Eve’ of Adam, roots, previously enjoyed from ‘mother’ of all natural living soul BODY hidden within, given us with G-d’s breath as upon Adam, thru ‘Eve’, of all such breathed upon with G-d’s Breath upon TODAY. all those having survived the ‘womb’, natural ‘breath’ of life, human development, pre-birth life, of which G-d of BREATH reserves to HIMSELF to begin life again in ‘resurrection’ from the dead, as amongst ‘rest of the dead which lived’ not again until, end of first resurrection). Was abortion, prevention of life, taking of ‘pill’, etc., et al, a murder or a killing, regardless, all sin NOW condemned to the ‘flesh’, that which is left behind here (exception, accountable as having become ‘twice born’ unto religious LAW, plucked by their roots, without possibility of resurrection as already twice dead, awaiting only great White Throne final judgment, eternal ‘departure’ in ‘spiritual eternal body’, no place for repentance ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, anymore). The ONLY baptism which NOW saves us (maintaining excellent conscience with our F-ther of all spirits, lights) is by GRACE of our LORD, SAME HOLY SPIRIT “OF PROMISE” NOW sent here by the F-ther by FAITH of our Lord, HE being found RIGHTEOUS in, faith in HIS departure from here, unto HIS eternal appearing for us, now in the HEAVENLIES, unto this same eternal within, now hidden inner ‘spiritual body’, ANOINTING in SAME HOPE of our LORD, when HE in days of HIS flesh, HIS going to HIS own cross, HIS also going to the ‘dead’, to ‘spirits in prison’, in HIS resurrection required by each appearance unto the ‘world than THEN was’ BY THE SAME SPIRIT WHO also will raise us up, from our ‘initial’ life here, unto resurrection in the FLESH, same ‘dna’, different ‘dust’, same likeness of same sinful flesh of both first, Last Adam, as in those days of their same likeness of very same partaking in sinful ‘flesh’, first Adam fallen IN THE FLESH. II Timothy written by Paul was advantaged by NEW COVENANT “Scripture” in detail as one of last Books of LETTERS written before being ‘compiled’ into our 27 Books, NOT in the ‘order’ they were distributed unto NEW COVENANT ‘Saints’.

  17. Dr. Brown,
    You answered my question (about whether homosexual offenses occurred in the time leading up to the destruction [of the first temple]) in hour 1 minute 12 second 30.


    But you followed that up by remarking,
    “And if you say, ‘Well, look: I love my partner and there’s nothing wrong with my partner and I being together of the same sex.’ I don’t say this to condemn you… .”

    I’m not sure if you were just throwing that out there for other listeners, but I am not gay—that was not why I asked.

  18. Messiah did not come to ‘condemn’ but that this world might be saved. He made clear ‘two men in a bed’, ‘two women together in business, even life long relationship (unknown in days of Messiah) would be forever separated by the sudden end of this tiny footstool ‘of HIS’, of ALL human soul life down here. NEVER AGAIN, for to be united in ‘order’ of resurrection of all (one taken eternally from the other, especially the more aggressive from chosen more passive by the more aggressive unto life long commitments ? in mostly eros, mixed, some phileo only, but agape ? NONE

Comments are closed.