# AAC: 11 Dec 2025 (Q&A) **URL:** \ **Category:** At Any Cost\ **Created:** [December 12, 2025, 12:45am UTC](https://omnifora.com/t/aac-11-dec-2025-q-a/4795 "2025-12-12T00:45:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mahler](https://omnifora.com/user_avatar/omnifora.com/mahler/32/7_2.png) [@mahler](https://omnifora.com/u/mahler)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2025, 12:45am UTC](https://omnifora.com/t/aac-11-dec-2025-q-a/4795/1 "2025-12-12T00:45:20Z")
# Episode Information - **Date** : 2025-12(Dec)-11(Thu) - **Number** : S2025E07 - **Links** : - Episode: [11 Dec 2025 (Q&A) | Corey J. Mahler Podcasts](https://podcasts.coreyjmahler.com/2025/12/11-dec-2025-qa/) - Transcript: [e0007.vtt](https://aac.cdn.coreyjmahler.com/transcripts/e0007.vtt) - Other Platforms: - Video: - YouTube: - Rumble: - Original Broadcasts - YouTube: - X: ---
**Author:** ![mahler](https://omnifora.com/user_avatar/omnifora.com/mahler/32/7_2.png) [@mahler](https://omnifora.com/u/mahler)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2025, 12:45am UTC](https://omnifora.com/t/aac-11-dec-2025-q-a/4795/2 "2025-12-12T00:45:54Z")
# Episode Wiki _This is the episode wiki — trusted users can edit it._ ## Topics Covered - [Starting a home church follow-up](https://omnifora.com/t/starting-a-home-church-follow-up/4857) ---
**Author:** ![mahler](https://omnifora.com/user_avatar/omnifora.com/mahler/32/7_2.png) [@mahler](https://omnifora.com/u/mahler)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2025, 12:46am UTC](https://omnifora.com/t/aac-11-dec-2025-q-a/4795/3 "2025-12-12T00:46:12Z")
# Transcript WEBVTT 00:00:01.000 → 00:00:08.200 I assume there is audio now, so I will simply re-say what I have already said, for those of you who are not lip readers. 00:00:08.200 → 00:00:09.500 I assume there’s audio now. 00:00:09.500 → 00:00:12.700 I know the chat will catch up here in a minute or so. 00:00:12.700 → 00:00:14.960 Someone said it’s better, so I assume that’s good. 00:00:14.960 → 00:00:17.980 Okay, anyway, welcome to the At Any Cost podcast. 00:00:17.980 → 00:00:20.580 It is the 11th of December, 2025. 00:00:20.580 → 00:00:24.860 This is the seventh episode, also the seventh Q&A episode. 00:00:24.860 → 00:00:28.980 And I have quite a few questions tonight, 40-something questions. 00:00:29.060 → 00:00:34.320 I know I will not get through all of those this episode, but it means that I have questions for future episodes. 00:00:34.320 → 00:00:41.580 And I will, of course, save those, like I’ve done in the past, for questions to which I did not get in other episodes. 00:00:41.580 → 00:00:43.460 Just a little bit of housekeeping before I start. 00:00:43.460 → 00:00:47.460 Of course, as always, questions can be submitted on the forum. 00:00:47.460 → 00:00:50.940 The link should be in the description on all platforms. 00:00:50.940 → 00:00:52.660 Hopefully it’s there. 00:00:52.660 → 00:00:54.260 So everything seems to be working. 00:00:54.260 → 00:00:57.620 Everything’s green on my end, so I will get into the questions here. 00:00:58.180 → 00:01:00.180 Let me just pull up that first question. 00:01:03.680 → 00:01:06.840 It’s about good works and unbelievers. 00:01:06.840 → 00:01:17.040 You have said a few times before that the Lutheran understanding of good works, that they are not counted toward unbelievers, or that they are actually not good works, but instead filthy rags. 00:01:17.040 → 00:01:19.660 Which is just a quote of scripture, of course. 00:01:19.660 → 00:01:24.740 But you have also said the weight of sin against God is infinite, so no number of good deeds could make up for it. 00:01:25.480 → 00:01:37.620 It seems to me that the view in which one’s good works count towards themselves, yet this is an infinite whole, so it’s an impossible task, would be both consistent with Christian redemption, also go over better in the ears of an unbeliever. 00:01:39.800 → 00:01:42.640 What problems does this view present? 00:01:42.640 → 00:01:46.180 Why is the more severe form more accurate, and in what ways? 00:01:47.560 → 00:02:08.400 So, there are a few questions here, and it’s one of those subjects that there’s a little bit of nuance in what exactly is being said and what exactly is meant, because, a different pen here, are good works good in and of themselves? 00:02:08.400 → 00:02:20.120 The answer to that is both yes and no, and I’ll get into sort of the meta issue here after speaking first about good works proper. 00:02:20.640 → 00:02:27.920 Because the meta issue is really the question, but there are things that are good in and of themselves, because they are good. 00:02:27.920 → 00:02:30.320 Everything created by God is good. 00:02:30.320 → 00:02:35.500 So, human beings in their nature are good. 00:02:35.500 → 00:02:44.960 Which sounds kind of crazy to Christian ears, because we’re used to thinking about human beings as fallen and sinful, and it’s a different sense of nature. 00:02:44.960 → 00:02:49.300 It’s in our essence, in the thing that God created, we are good. 00:02:50.580 → 00:02:55.620 Now, we are corrupted by the fall and by original sin. 00:02:55.620 → 00:03:00.280 And so, we are not good in that sense. 00:03:00.280 → 00:03:04.640 Our nature is corrupted, but it is a good thing that was corrupted. 00:03:04.640 → 00:03:10.460 Similarly, I’m going to take my tea bag out of my tea here before it gets bitter. 00:03:10.460 → 00:03:22.380 But similarly, with regard to good works, and this gets into the sort of meta issue here, the status of the individual matters. 00:03:22.380 → 00:03:26.400 This is something that we used to recognize in our laws and elsewhere. 00:03:26.400 → 00:03:44.140 I’ve used the example before of crimes that are enhanced by the status of the person against whom the crime was committed, which is obviously relevant for sin, because sin, all sin, is committed against God, against you, against you only have I sinned, to use the psalm. 00:03:45.720 → 00:03:53.980 And so, with regard to certain crimes, the most obvious example, probably the best example, is treason. 00:03:53.980 → 00:03:59.420 Because there are different kinds of treason, historically at least, because what ultimately is treason? 00:03:59.420 → 00:04:04.480 Treason is betraying someone to whom you owed a duty. 00:04:04.480 → 00:04:08.180 Now we have high treason, which is treason against your sovereign. 00:04:08.200 → 00:04:12.780 Used to be treason against the king, now it’s treason against your country, or whatever it happens to be. 00:04:14.480 → 00:04:16.560 Maybe you still have a king, depending where you are. 00:04:16.560 → 00:04:24.080 But you have high treason, and you have petty treason, which is just French for small in this case. 00:04:24.080 → 00:04:27.960 It’s not petty like, you know, unimportant. 00:04:27.960 → 00:04:34.020 So petty treason would be treason against someone who is your head, basically. 00:04:34.020 → 00:04:43.800 Historically the most common one would have been children murdering their parents, usually their father, or a wife murdering her husband. 00:04:43.800 → 00:04:47.780 That is not just murder, it’s also petty treason. 00:04:47.780 → 00:04:58.800 Similarly, with regard to sin, because sin is committed against God, the transgress of sin is infinite, which again is correctly stated in that question. 00:04:58.800 → 00:05:03.000 It’s why you can never pay back the debt that is owed. 00:05:03.000 → 00:05:08.860 You can never pay back an infinite debt with any amount of finite payments. 00:05:09.600 → 00:05:21.760 And so, human beings being finite, we can’t ever render an infinite amount to God, which is why Christ had to die, because Christ being God, his death of infinite value. 00:05:21.760 → 00:05:24.000 So, that balances the scales. 00:05:27.300 → 00:05:41.360 So, the question then of whether or not a person can do a good work, a truly good work, matters with regard to the status of the individual. 00:05:41.360 → 00:05:50.700 If the individual is in good standing, as it were, with God, which is to say in Christ, because that’s the only way to be in good standing with God. 00:05:50.700 → 00:05:56.640 So, if you’re in Christ, you have your slate wiped clean with regard to sin. 00:05:56.640 → 00:06:03.340 Your sin is not counted against you, because Christ’s righteousness is imputed to you, because you are in Christ. 00:06:03.340 → 00:06:04.200 It’s an issue of headship. 00:06:05.580 → 00:06:21.080 Those who are still fallen, those who are still not righteous, according to imputed righteousness, do not have good works, because everything they do is sin, because they are sinners. 00:06:21.080 → 00:06:27.900 An important point here that I’ve commented on before, I’ve raised it many places, but it bears repeating. 00:06:27.900 → 00:06:32.200 You do not become a sinner, because you sin. 00:06:34.080 → 00:06:37.360 You sin, because you are a sinner. 00:06:37.360 → 00:06:45.060 Now, that’s true of everyone, except Adam, because Adam became a sinner, because he sinned. 00:06:45.060 → 00:06:47.500 For the rest of us were born sinners. 00:06:47.500 → 00:06:50.840 In sin did my mother conceive me, again to quote the Psalms. 00:06:50.840 → 00:06:54.280 And so, we sin because we’re sinners. 00:06:54.280 → 00:07:01.380 In order for our good works to actually have merit before God, we have to be cleansed of being a sinner. 00:07:02.220 → 00:07:04.220 Which means we have to be in Christ. 00:07:05.280 → 00:07:09.780 Those who are not in Christ, therefore, cannot have works that are actually good. 00:07:09.780 → 00:07:14.780 It’s the distinction between whether something is good per se. 00:07:14.780 → 00:07:17.180 So, feeding your children is good. 00:07:17.180 → 00:07:19.480 Starving your children is bad. 00:07:19.480 → 00:07:22.740 Doesn’t actually matter if you’re a Christian or a non-Christian. 00:07:22.740 → 00:07:25.080 Those two things remain what they are. 00:07:25.080 → 00:07:27.460 Good to feed your children, bad to starve your children. 00:07:28.960 → 00:07:39.540 But, the good act, the good work, does not count for you before God unless you are in Christ, because you are a sinner. 00:07:40.820 → 00:07:49.520 So, it’s sort of two different things there, and there’s a nuance, but it’s important to understand the nature of it. 00:07:50.560 → 00:07:54.080 To some degree, it’s not something that has to be raised with, say, new believers. 00:07:54.080 → 00:07:56.160 This is something that’s more meat than milk. 00:07:57.560 → 00:08:06.440 But, once you progress in the faith, it’s important to understand the reality of how bad and corrupting sin is. 00:08:06.440 → 00:08:11.080 And anytime you minimize sin, what are you also inevitably doing? 00:08:11.080 → 00:08:15.440 You’re minimizing Christ’s sacrifice, which you never want to do. 00:08:15.440 → 00:08:42.580 And so, it is necessary to understand the depth of the depravity of sin, and the corruption of it, and what it does to the individual, and the fact that an individual who is still living in that sin, not to say that those of us who are in Christ are sinless, it’s just not counted against us because of imputed righteousness, but if you are still living in that sin, you cannot truly do anything that is good because you are still a sinner. 00:08:42.580 → 00:08:46.760 So, for those who are new to the faith, it’s not something on which we should focus. 00:08:46.760 → 00:08:52.140 No, we can point out that, yes, there are things that are good in themselves because God created them. 00:08:53.000 → 00:08:55.440 All of the things God created are good. 00:08:55.440 → 00:08:58.440 The things that God tells us to do are good. 00:08:58.440 → 00:09:01.400 So, if we do them, we’ve done something good. 00:09:01.400 → 00:09:04.320 But it’s not counted unless you’re in Christ. 00:09:07.240 → 00:09:09.160 I believe that answers that question. 00:09:09.160 → 00:09:11.320 Let me pull up the second question here. 00:09:18.912 → 00:09:23.252 This is from last week, I carried over a question. 00:09:23.252 → 00:09:31.292 And I do try to give preference to questions that are on the forum simply because that helps me as I’ve pointed out before, but anyway. 00:09:31.292 → 00:09:37.852 Was the Tetragrammaton in the Old Testament Hebrew or text, or was it a Masoretic addition? 00:09:37.852 → 00:09:40.832 If the latter, what is the origin, how did it end up there? 00:09:40.832 → 00:09:54.492 I don’t have to deal with the if the latter bit, because yes, as far as we can tell, and we do have fairly good proof for this, is the Tetragrammaton was present in the Ur text when that existed. 00:09:55.652 → 00:10:07.952 So for those who aren’t aware what Ur text means, it just means the actual Old Testament in the Hebrew that God gave to Old Testament Israel that was lost and destroyed. 00:10:07.952 → 00:10:13.992 Incidentally, the final copies of it destroyed with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, burned on the temple steps no less. 00:10:14.672 → 00:10:17.492 So, judgment from God there. 00:10:17.492 → 00:10:20.692 And the Tetragrammaton, for those who don’t know, it just means four letters. 00:10:20.692 → 00:10:21.412 It’s just Greek. 00:10:21.412 → 00:10:24.652 Incidentally, it’s Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew or anything. 00:10:24.652 → 00:10:30.852 So YHWH in English, Yod He Vav He in Hebrew. 00:10:30.852 → 00:10:34.612 And I don’t care if I pronounce this correctly because it’s Hebrew and I don’t care. 00:10:34.612 → 00:10:44.212 But some of the Septuagint papyri do, in fact, have in Hebrew letters the Tetragrammaton. 00:10:45.532 → 00:11:01.852 The issue is, as we pointed out in the episodes on the Septuagint and elsewhere, we don’t know the vocalization of it because the Hebrews decided they were going to be more pious than God and not use God’s name. 00:11:01.852 → 00:11:10.652 They probably thought they were getting around the commandment not to take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain because, well, we’re not using it at all, so we can’t take it in vain. 00:11:10.652 → 00:11:14.892 Probably their rules lawyering, trying to Jew God. 00:11:14.892 → 00:11:25.332 But some copies, like I said, of Septuagint papyri do have it, and so we can rely on that, but all it gives us is the letters. 00:11:25.332 → 00:11:28.312 It doesn’t give us the vowels, so we don’t know what it is. 00:11:28.312 → 00:11:40.052 But what we do know is that the inspired Greek text translates it as Lord, Kurios, and so we know to call him Lord, God, all these other names that he has. 00:11:40.052 → 00:11:42.692 So we shouldn’t use that. 00:11:42.692 → 00:11:45.412 I wouldn’t say that it’s wrong to use the four letters on something. 00:11:45.412 → 00:11:55.652 For instance, they’re on the cover page of the Book of Concord, but they’re not transliterated, vowels aren’t added, it’s just the four letters. 00:11:56.732 → 00:12:14.972 Another interesting point with regard to the translation of that, and particularly the Greek, in this case specifically the Greek, there are some texts that have it translated as transliterated into English, IAO. 00:12:14.972 → 00:12:20.752 So iota, alpha, omega, not the other O, but the last one. 00:12:20.752 → 00:12:27.352 Which is perhaps interesting because that’s essentially one of the names God uses for himself. 00:12:27.352 → 00:12:31.352 I am the alpha and the omega, to quote Revelation, the beginning and the end. 00:12:31.792 → 00:12:43.172 So, sort of an interesting point that is translated sometimes is that as well, which does not sound like, you know, Yahweh or whatever it happens to be, IAO. 00:12:43.172 → 00:12:44.252 It’s not the same thing. 00:12:44.252 → 00:12:49.152 I know some people have tried to make that argument, but they honestly don’t even sound similar. 00:12:50.232 → 00:12:53.732 So, is it present in the Urtext? 00:12:53.812 → 00:13:00.392 Sure, but still without the vowels, because Hebrews and Abjad, they don’t write down their vowels at all at that point. 00:13:00.392 → 00:13:02.372 They didn’t even die of diacritics yet. 00:13:04.392 → 00:13:12.492 The next question, where should a Christian attend church if there are no faithful congregations nearby? 00:13:12.492 → 00:13:17.612 I’ve answered this one a number of times, but this is one of those that definitely bears repeating, and I don’t know that I’ve answered it in this format yet. 00:13:17.612 → 00:13:19.872 In fact, I believe I have not, except in passing. 00:13:21.592 → 00:13:30.552 If you do not have a faithful congregation nearby, you should start a house church, or you should find a house church. 00:13:30.552 → 00:13:31.972 There’s nothing wrong with doing that. 00:13:31.972 → 00:13:34.872 House churches are perfectly acceptable. 00:13:34.872 → 00:13:45.352 If your house church does really well, and grows, and I hope that it does, or the members of the church just have a lot of children, then you can acquire a building. 00:13:45.352 → 00:13:46.812 Nothing wrong with that. 00:13:46.812 → 00:13:51.392 If you happen to have a man who is sufficiently competent among you, ordain him. 00:13:51.392 → 00:13:53.152 There’s nothing that stops you from doing that. 00:13:53.152 → 00:13:56.372 The congregation calls, the congregation ordains. 00:13:56.372 → 00:14:01.692 The bishop is not the one that has the power from God to do that. 00:14:01.692 → 00:14:09.792 The bishop, if you have a system that is an Episcopal system, you have a bishop in your system, then he does that as a point of Christian order. 00:14:09.792 → 00:14:11.852 It’s a matter of good order in the church. 00:14:11.852 → 00:14:26.652 But during times like this, that’s not necessary, and it could very well be harmful, probably, because most of the bishops are, in fact, not faithful, sort of regardless of which church body is in view. 00:14:26.652 → 00:14:37.392 The Roman Catholic bishops are faithless, the Anglican bishops are faithless, the LCMS equivalent of bishops are faithless, so that’s the reality of the situation. 00:14:37.392 → 00:14:39.232 Start a home church. 00:14:39.232 → 00:14:41.172 Perfectly acceptable. 00:14:41.172 → 00:14:48.872 You’re going to avoid a lot of the issues, and eventually, perhaps, then you’ll be able to acquire a church building, maybe from one of these mainline churches as they go under. 00:14:49.992 → 00:14:54.552 One of the biggest ways in which ELCA currently makes money is selling old church buildings. 00:14:54.552 → 00:14:57.152 So… 00:14:57.152 → 00:14:59.252 The next question. 00:14:59.252 → 00:15:02.632 When did you become a Christian? 00:15:02.632 → 00:15:05.032 I can answer that one in two words, in utero. 00:15:08.772 → 00:15:12.312 So for that one, I would definitely say, I was a Christian from the very beginning. 00:15:13.392 → 00:15:17.992 I was born into a Christian family, raised as a Christian, never been anything else. 00:15:17.992 → 00:15:20.692 Now, I was not raised Lutheran. 00:15:20.692 → 00:15:26.412 I did become a Lutheran later in life, but I’ve been a Christian my entire life. 00:15:26.412 → 00:15:29.572 So… 00:15:29.572 → 00:15:31.312 The next question. 00:15:31.312 → 00:15:37.392 For your confident faith daily devotions, which book could I buy to get the same in print form? 00:15:37.392 → 00:15:40.532 What daily prayer routine addition to daily readings and devotion, if any? 00:15:41.392 → 00:15:56.612 So, the answer for that, specifically, I read the lectionary, the daily lectionary readings from the Treasury of Daily Prayer, which is very similar to many other daily lectionaries across a number of denominations. 00:15:56.612 → 00:15:58.692 But it is specifically the Treasury of Daily Prayer. 00:15:58.692 → 00:16:00.832 I’ll put a link in the show notes. 00:16:00.832 → 00:16:05.312 And that is from Concordia Publishing House, the publishing arm of the LCMS. 00:16:05.312 → 00:16:18.192 I am currently reading the Old Testament, so the Psalms and the Old Testament reading from NETS, which is a translation of the Septuagint, which is just the new English translation of the Septuagint. 00:16:18.192 → 00:16:21.572 That’s available for free online, or you can purchase a hard copy. 00:16:21.572 → 00:16:24.172 They’re relatively reasonably priced. 00:16:24.172 → 00:16:28.152 They’re not great print quality, but they’re good enough. 00:16:28.152 → 00:16:30.652 The New Testament readings, I just read the ESV. 00:16:30.652 → 00:16:31.692 ESV is fine. 00:16:31.692 → 00:16:35.592 I do fix some of the things it does that are, I would say, wrong. 00:16:36.872 → 00:16:43.092 They’re kind of quirks, more than being wrong, but definitely some of the translators had an agenda. 00:16:43.092 → 00:16:50.932 And so the biggest one, I never say Gentiles, because Gentiles is not an English word. 00:16:50.932 → 00:16:57.172 So it’s completely ridiculous that we have it in our English translations of scripture. 00:16:57.172 → 00:17:02.932 As I put it out before, Gentiles is basically of the nations in Latin. 00:17:04.192 → 00:17:15.612 Well, we have all the words of the nations, or whatever it happens to be, whichever noun case it is, to the nations, of the nations, from the nations, whatever it is. 00:17:15.612 → 00:17:18.852 We have all these things in English, it should be translated. 00:17:18.852 → 00:17:27.032 And so I follow sort of the same thing that Luther did, depending on the context for the term, and there are a couple of different terms there, actually. 00:17:27.032 → 00:17:37.692 There’s ethnicos and ethnos, but you either have, essentially, nations, heathen, or peoples. 00:17:37.692 → 00:17:41.812 And really, you can get away with just heathen and nations is sufficient. 00:17:41.812 → 00:17:50.192 There are a couple of places where it’s kind of awkward in English to say either of those, and so people sounds better, but, or peoples, plural. 00:17:50.192 → 00:17:56.452 So I do change that when I’m reading, but I just do that on the fly while I’m reading the text, because it’s not accurate to say Gentiles. 00:17:56.452 → 00:17:57.952 It’s misleading, it’s Judaizing. 00:17:57.952 → 00:17:59.932 We should not be doing it. 00:17:59.932 → 00:18:13.612 But other than that, the only other thing that I mentally change, and then obviously speak the corrected form, there are some places where the translators were uncomfortable with the word slave. 00:18:13.612 → 00:18:25.212 Now, yes, the Greek doulos can mean servant or slave, but it generally has the meaning, at least the nuance, of slave more than servant. 00:18:25.212 → 00:18:37.532 Not always, because certainly when, and for instance, some of the letters, you have Paul speaking about us being servants of Christ, perhaps that’s a little more servant. 00:18:37.532 → 00:18:47.792 There are times where Christ is contrasting things, and it seems like servant is perhaps meant more so than slave, but there are also times where very clearly slave is meant. 00:18:47.792 → 00:18:50.572 And so I will change that if it says servant, I’ll change it to slave. 00:18:50.632 → 00:18:54.532 And even the ESV, some versions of it, do indeed have slave. 00:18:54.532 → 00:18:58.712 So that’s something that they have gone back and forth on that one. 00:18:58.712 → 00:19:09.132 And then finally, for the readings from the Book of Concord, which is the final bit of the Daily Devotions, I use the Reader’s Edition, second edition. 00:19:09.132 → 00:19:12.452 You probably won’t be able to find the first edition, so it hardly matters which one. 00:19:12.452 → 00:19:14.912 If you have the Reader’s Edition, it’s going to be the second. 00:19:15.952 → 00:19:29.132 The reason that I like that one primarily for people is that it’s the one I recommend for anyone who is new to Lutheranism or these theology issues, because it has a lot of helpful material in the book. 00:19:29.132 → 00:19:39.512 There are essays on various topics, there’s history, there’s context, all these things that even most Lutherans simply will not know. 00:19:39.512 → 00:19:41.012 At least not all of it. 00:19:41.012 → 00:19:43.212 And so it’s very helpful to have those materials. 00:19:43.212 → 00:19:52.192 As anyone who knows what a Reader’s Edition is, not the Reader’s Edition of the Bible, which is just the Bible with all the formatting removed, basically, so it reads like a normal book. 00:19:52.192 → 00:20:02.092 But a Reader’s Edition of any other work is typically something that is accompanied by explanatory essays, lots of footnotes, helpful materials. 00:20:02.092 → 00:20:06.452 That’s what the RE2 of the Book of Concord is. 00:20:06.452 → 00:20:14.692 Now, that’s not the same translation as is available on [thebookofconcord.org](http://thebookofconcord.org), which is the website that I maintain for the Book of Concord. 00:20:15.792 → 00:20:20.812 That one is the Triglotta English, because it’s in the public domain. 00:20:20.812 → 00:20:23.512 The Reader’s Edition second is not in the public domain. 00:20:23.512 → 00:20:28.292 I did ask CPH if they would let me add that to the Book of Concord website. 00:20:28.292 → 00:20:29.372 They said no. 00:20:29.372 → 00:20:32.852 So that’s why it’s not available on there yet. 00:20:32.852 → 00:20:34.112 Maybe one day they will. 00:20:34.112 → 00:20:35.372 We can hope. 00:20:37.112 → 00:20:39.272 Next question, sort of related. 00:20:39.272 → 00:20:43.992 Will you be recording a daily Septuagint version of the Bible in 2026? 00:20:43.992 → 00:20:46.492 That is currently the plan. 00:20:46.492 → 00:20:49.572 I think I will probably use the nets. 00:20:49.572 → 00:20:53.932 There are some quirks in the Lexham edition that I don’t really like. 00:20:53.932 → 00:21:12.092 But the problem with all the currently existing editions is that they’re either really old, sort of like the original King James, which would be the Brenton edition, and Brenton also does some weird stuff, where sometimes he pulls from the Masoretic for seemingly no reason. 00:21:12.092 → 00:21:13.172 He just felt like it. 00:21:13.172 → 00:21:15.252 Maybe he was translating and remembered what he’d read. 00:21:15.252 → 00:21:17.052 I don’t know what happened there. 00:21:18.352 → 00:21:26.252 They’re the ones that are very academic, like nets, and to some degree the Lexham, LES2 at this point, the second edition of it. 00:21:26.252 → 00:21:31.072 And there are none that really flow well as natural English. 00:21:31.072 → 00:21:33.632 But of course, I’ve critiqued the ESV for the same thing. 00:21:33.712 → 00:21:49.712 It can be stilted at times, because they tried to make the English follow the Hebrew, which is what they were using, the Masoretic, and in the New Testament, the Greek grammar, which doesn’t work in English, because English grammar is different from both Greek and Hebrew grammar. 00:21:49.712 → 00:21:51.732 So it sounds stilted. 00:21:51.732 → 00:21:54.552 So there are problems with all the editions currently available. 00:21:54.552 → 00:21:55.872 I’m not saying they’re unfaithful. 00:21:55.872 → 00:21:58.432 The nets basically is very faithful. 00:21:58.432 → 00:22:01.692 I don’t think I’ve found anything where I truly objected to their translation decisions. 00:22:02.672 → 00:22:10.152 It’s just stilted because it’s meant to be sort of overly literal in an academic way. 00:22:10.152 → 00:22:29.132 And the biggest challenge there, for me personally, as I’m going to be reading it aloud, they translate some of the names extremely literally from Greek into English, which makes them unpronounceable, or just they sound completely crazy. 00:22:29.132 → 00:22:36.712 I can’t remember exactly what it is now, but Nebuchadnezzar is something completely insane in the Nets edition. 00:22:36.712 → 00:22:48.152 And so I’d have to decide if I were going to just change those mentally as I’m going through from what I know from reading other editions of scripture in English. 00:22:48.152 → 00:22:54.632 In some cases, you know, you get a list of names, and it’s difficult to do that because maybe you don’t remember them all, and they’re very different in the Greek. 00:22:54.632 → 00:22:57.752 So there are some challenges there deciding which one. 00:22:57.812 → 00:23:09.332 But yes, the short answer is, I do intend to do the readings from the Septuagint for the next series, as it were, of the Through the Bible in a Year. 00:23:09.332 → 00:23:10.832 Probably the Nets. 00:23:10.852 → 00:23:13.832 Possibly the Lexem, but probably the Nets. 00:23:16.292 → 00:23:19.952 The next question, question seven. 00:23:21.092 → 00:23:28.092 What is the best way to prevent my daughters from mixing, please, something specific instead of read the Bible or something like that? 00:23:28.092 → 00:23:35.092 Of course, I’m going to go something more specific than that, because just read the Bible is not actually going to solve all your problems. 00:23:35.092 → 00:23:38.032 There are other things you have to do in life. 00:23:38.032 → 00:23:42.472 They are still really young, so this is entirely preventative, not reactionary. 00:23:44.652 → 00:23:49.132 I’ll probably write something more substantial on this in the future. 00:23:49.132 → 00:23:53.072 In fact, I’ll make a note of that, because I definitely should do that at some point. 00:23:54.372 → 00:24:02.672 But there are some things I can say now, some concrete things you can do, that will be very helpful. 00:24:02.712 → 00:24:06.672 One, of course, is going to be to inform them of the consequences. 00:24:06.672 → 00:24:10.132 Inform them their children will be less fit. 00:24:10.132 → 00:24:18.092 Inform them their children will be less related to them than any random individual they pass on the street, who is of their same race, of course. 00:24:18.092 → 00:24:22.792 Inform them of all these various problems they are going to encounter if they go down that path. 00:24:23.952 → 00:24:28.072 Inform them of the reality of domestic violence and other things like that. 00:24:28.072 → 00:24:33.052 To some degree, you can very well reason with them even though they are teenage girls. 00:24:33.052 → 00:24:34.592 That’s going to be challenging, of course. 00:24:34.592 → 00:24:37.192 There are some difficulties there. 00:24:37.192 → 00:24:43.752 But you can still reason with them, particularly when it comes to talking to them about what will happen to their children. 00:24:43.752 → 00:24:47.072 They are going to have that natural maternal instinct. 00:24:47.072 → 00:24:50.632 All women have that until propaganda and the world beats it out of them. 00:24:51.272 → 00:24:53.612 So, you can appeal to that, and that’s entirely natural. 00:24:53.612 → 00:24:55.652 It’s a thing that you should do. 00:24:56.772 → 00:25:09.652 You, particularly in the case of white daughters, you can point out eye color, things like that, things that they simply will not be able to pass on to their children if they marry outside their race, if they miscegenate. 00:25:10.972 → 00:25:26.872 And obviously, one of the easiest steps you can take, not perhaps easiest, but certainly most effective, simplest, if not in the execution than in saying it, stating it, keep them away from non-whites. 00:25:26.872 → 00:25:34.892 If you keep them away from them, they’re not going to have the opportunity to fall into that particular sin, that particular path. 00:25:34.892 → 00:25:39.472 And yes, there are times where very frequently it is sin, so I’m comfortable saying that. 00:25:39.472 → 00:25:39.992 Not always. 00:25:39.992 → 00:25:48.092 I’ve explained per se and per quote before, so I won’t go down that rabbit trail here, because that would eat up ten minutes of the time for this episode, and I don’t want to do that here. 00:25:50.232 → 00:26:09.092 And then I guess the final recommendation, we marry them off early, do not give them that opportunity, that window of time where the world is going to appeal to their irrationality, to get them to do things that they will regret for the rest of their lives, and that have consequences they probably cannot undo. 00:26:10.112 → 00:26:12.072 Definitely cannot undo in many cases. 00:26:12.072 → 00:26:20.672 So I think that’s sort of a general recommendation for fathers who have daughters, because of the state of things in the world. 00:26:20.672 → 00:26:21.892 Marry them off early. 00:26:21.892 → 00:26:23.652 You’re going to avoid a lot of problems. 00:26:23.652 → 00:26:27.232 And though I’m not saying, you know, 16, but 21. 00:26:27.232 → 00:26:28.392 Marry them off early. 00:26:28.392 → 00:26:30.592 Solve many of these problems for yourself. 00:26:30.592 → 00:26:31.812 And for her. 00:26:31.812 → 00:26:36.572 She will eventually thank you when she realizes what you did for her and what she got to avoid. 00:26:38.352 → 00:26:43.652 But yes, I think I will write something more substantive on that at some point in the future. 00:26:43.732 → 00:26:46.912 I think that’s something that needs to be addressed. 00:26:46.912 → 00:26:55.312 And I know that I also need to write something more substantial on interracial marriage and the intersection with theology and morality. 00:26:56.572 → 00:27:00.512 But for now, next question. 00:27:00.512 → 00:27:10.052 With usury robbing us all, very true, would there be a realistic way for Christians to pool money and buy out each other’s loans? 00:27:10.052 → 00:27:17.132 Not necessarily debt forgiveness, but an organization that effectively refinances at 0 percent. 00:27:20.212 → 00:27:28.692 I can certainly think of ways that you could play games with the financial and legal system and accomplish that goal. 00:27:29.732 → 00:27:35.012 But you would be shut down by the same financial and legal system pretty quickly. 00:27:36.572 → 00:27:42.972 So, could you manage to erase a substantial chunk of debt for a certain number of people? 00:27:42.972 → 00:27:44.352 The answer is yes. 00:27:44.352 → 00:27:50.252 And you could manage to do that with relatively small amounts of money. 00:27:50.252 → 00:28:02.692 But it would probably have a negative impact on the credit scores of the individuals you help, which probably won’t matter for many because getting rid of the huge debt is better than retaining the probably not great credit score. 00:28:03.852 → 00:28:05.632 But certainly better than what it will be. 00:28:05.632 → 00:28:11.392 And of course, those things rebound as long as you play the game, unfortunately, but it is what it is. 00:28:11.392 → 00:28:15.532 It’s the reality of the situation which we find ourselves. 00:28:15.532 → 00:28:19.212 But yes, the issue would be is that you would be shut down. 00:28:19.212 → 00:28:28.632 And so it would have to be quite a few individuals pursuing this so that they could each get a certain amount of work done before getting shut down. 00:28:28.632 → 00:28:32.452 Because once you get shut down, they’re never letting you do it again. 00:28:32.552 → 00:28:35.052 You’ll never get away with that again. 00:28:35.052 → 00:28:42.052 And it may have financial consequences for the person who is responsible for the entity you set up to do this. 00:28:43.252 → 00:28:49.392 And they would potentially go after you for fraud depending on how you execute the plan. 00:28:49.392 → 00:28:50.992 So is it possible? 00:28:50.992 → 00:28:52.812 To some degree, yes. 00:28:52.812 → 00:28:54.252 Is it practicable? 00:28:54.252 → 00:28:57.332 I would have to say probably not. 00:28:57.332 → 00:29:00.112 We really have to have political power to ban usury. 00:29:00.512 → 00:29:02.552 And that means the charging of any interest, incidentally. 00:29:02.552 → 00:29:04.432 Not the charging of unreasonable interest. 00:29:04.432 → 00:29:23.512 That was a redefinition that came from, I won’t name names here because I’m not looking to get into that theological fire right now, but that came from only a handful of hundreds of years ago, where it was changed from the charging of any interest to the charging of exorbitant or excessive interest. 00:29:23.512 → 00:29:31.132 The traditional understanding of Christians and the church and the plain meaning of scripture is, the charging of any interest is prohibited. 00:29:31.132 → 00:29:33.532 Because money is not productive. 00:29:33.532 → 00:29:35.152 Money is not fruitful. 00:29:35.152 → 00:29:36.332 Money is sterile. 00:29:36.332 → 00:29:38.912 It should not produce new money. 00:29:42.192 → 00:29:48.292 Next question, sort of shifting gears, but not entirely since it’s still politics. 00:29:48.292 → 00:29:51.452 I’ll take a sip of, perhaps ironically here, I guess, tea. 00:29:56.032 → 00:29:58.512 And you’ll see why I said ironically here in a second. 00:30:00.272 → 00:30:03.112 How big of a threat is China to the West? 00:30:03.112 → 00:30:04.912 Is there a possibility of war? 00:30:04.912 → 00:30:07.732 And if so, how can it be prevented? 00:30:10.272 → 00:30:20.852 I think the only reasonable answer to that is that China, currently and for the foreseeable future, is the second greatest threat to the West after the Jews. 00:30:22.512 → 00:30:26.252 Which is, yes, to say they are a larger threat than Islam, ultimately. 00:30:26.252 → 00:30:34.032 Now, of course, the Muslims in our lands are a problem, but that’s a very eminently solvable problem. 00:30:34.032 → 00:30:36.952 Even if some people may find it distasteful, it’s solvable. 00:30:37.972 → 00:30:39.312 China is a bigger threat. 00:30:39.312 → 00:30:57.292 And the reason China is a bigger threat is because China has a population of over a billion people who recognize themselves as Chinese, who believe themselves correctly to be Chinese, even though they have a number of different ethnic groups under that umbrella, they’re still all Chinese. 00:30:57.292 → 00:30:59.232 They’re just not all Han, basically. 00:30:59.232 → 00:31:04.172 Although more and more of them are as the party policies progress. 00:31:04.172 → 00:31:11.492 So lots of people know who they are, kind of work together, but at least follow orders to some degree. 00:31:13.772 → 00:31:16.352 So, are they as innovative? 00:31:16.352 → 00:31:17.072 No. 00:31:17.072 → 00:31:18.712 Are they as creative? 00:31:18.712 → 00:31:20.192 No. 00:31:20.192 → 00:31:25.852 Do they have the history of being a military power in the same sense as the West? 00:31:25.852 → 00:31:27.012 No. 00:31:27.012 → 00:31:29.792 I’m not saying they have no military history, of course, because they do. 00:31:29.792 → 00:31:30.952 They certainly have fought wars. 00:31:30.952 → 00:31:38.412 They’ve won some wars, usually against themselves, but they are certainly a threat today. 00:31:38.412 → 00:31:48.412 And the biggest reason they are a threat today is because of not the technological advantage, but the technological foundation. 00:31:48.412 → 00:32:02.532 It’s very important to note that basically, the entire world today is reliant on chip manufacturers, fabs, located in Taiwan, which isn’t China, right? 00:32:02.532 → 00:32:04.712 Except it is China, let’s be honest. 00:32:06.112 → 00:32:13.252 But the issue is, if China went to take Taiwan, we can’t stop them, not reasonably. 00:32:13.252 → 00:32:18.172 Now, we could stop them, but it’s in a way that we don’t want to do. 00:32:18.172 → 00:32:21.372 China knows that, but China is a rational actor. 00:32:21.372 → 00:32:28.012 Another reason that they’re sort of a threat, because they’re one of the only handful of rational actors on the stage at this point. 00:32:28.012 → 00:32:49.532 So they recognize, if they go after Taiwan right now, or if they’d gone after Taiwan the past handful of decades, it would possibly precipitate a major conflict, a potentially nuclear conflict, because it’s worth remembering, the parties involved in nuclear powers, and more nuclear powers will get dragged in. 00:32:49.532 → 00:33:01.332 And there’s always the risk of a chain reaction with Taiwan kicking off a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, which is just two groups of Indians nuking each other, but it is what it is. 00:33:01.332 → 00:33:07.592 And China being rational actors, they don’t want to do that. 00:33:07.592 → 00:33:45.472 They would much rather take Taiwan and have Taiwan be intact, because the biggest point of taking Taiwan from the Chinese mindset, and I don’t sort of want to go into a full graduate level political history and political science course here on China, but the biggest thing for the Chinese with regard to Taiwan is that the fact that the nationalists took Taiwan, were able to flee, and set up shop on Taiwan, take sovereign Chinese territory, is a major loss of face. 00:33:45.472 → 00:33:51.552 And that is still a thing in Chinese society, all traditional Asian societies. 00:33:51.552 → 00:33:52.652 There’s some nuance. 00:33:52.652 → 00:34:00.832 The Chinese and the Japanese aren’t exactly the same when it comes to losing face, and neither are the Koreans, but losing face is a big thing in Eastern politics. 00:34:00.832 → 00:34:02.892 It’s not as much of a thing in Western politics. 00:34:03.792 → 00:34:10.412 We used to have it, to some degree, with regard to honor and loss of honor and slights to honor. 00:34:10.412 → 00:34:13.372 It’s different in the Asian context. 00:34:13.372 → 00:34:14.712 Now, there’s also the mandate of heaven. 00:34:14.712 → 00:34:19.652 I could get into that, but it’s sort of tangentially related here. 00:34:19.652 → 00:34:23.872 But they lost face because the nationalists were not totally defeated. 00:34:23.872 → 00:34:35.592 The nationalists took a very important part of China for China’s international reputation in their eyes, and their own view of themselves. 00:34:35.592 → 00:34:38.852 Now, mind you, the island was not very good when the nationalists took it. 00:34:38.852 → 00:34:41.632 They have built that up into what it is today. 00:34:41.632 → 00:34:46.072 Hellscape that the cities are, they’ve still done something impressive. 00:34:46.072 → 00:35:14.432 And so, China needs to take that according to their own mindset, but also according to their calculations for ongoing conflicts with the West and others, because they don’t simply want the influence of being right next to Taiwan with guns that can shoot Taiwan from the mainland and other things like that, and certainly a massive army that could overwhelm Taiwan. 00:35:15.592 → 00:35:27.692 They want to have actual control, immediate control over those resources, particularly all of the chip manufacturers, because that controls the modern world. 00:35:29.592 → 00:35:34.572 The chips in basically everything you’re using were probably made in Taiwan. 00:35:34.572 → 00:35:39.292 Handful of other places in some cases, but probably Taiwan. 00:35:39.292 → 00:35:46.892 Some of the things I have here are German made, but the phone on my desk, Taiwan, the chip in it. 00:35:46.892 → 00:35:50.332 My iPhone, probably Taiwan. 00:35:50.332 → 00:35:57.472 So the stuff on which we rely, relies on hardware made in Taiwan. 00:35:59.012 → 00:36:10.572 And so China, if they take Taiwan, is in a position to have a continuing supply of these chips, whereas we would not. 00:36:10.572 → 00:36:19.652 And this is not something where we can just spin up a new fab and have it ready in five years, or ten years, maybe ten years. 00:36:19.652 → 00:36:35.612 But even ten years would be a challenge, because the number of men on the planet who actually understand what is going on in those fabs and how to rebuild them would fit on a double-decker bus. 00:36:35.612 → 00:36:37.652 It is a small number of men. 00:36:37.652 → 00:36:41.352 China, incidentally, also knows that and has contingency plans. 00:36:41.352 → 00:36:46.932 You can imagine what they are if they don’t manage to take Taiwan. 00:36:47.992 → 00:36:56.032 So, yes, China is our biggest actual threat in terms of, you know, near-peer. 00:36:56.352 → 00:37:00.372 They’re not really a near-peer, but it’s sort of an interesting dynamic. 00:37:01.192 → 00:37:03.072 They’re powerful enough to be a threat. 00:37:03.072 → 00:37:06.052 So, they are the biggest threat in that sense. 00:37:06.052 → 00:37:07.132 After, of course, the Jews. 00:37:07.132 → 00:37:09.092 The Jews are a threat for a different reason. 00:37:09.092 → 00:37:12.552 Because the Israeli military is not a threat to us. 00:37:12.552 → 00:37:16.992 We could wipe them out in three hours if we really felt like it. 00:37:16.992 → 00:37:18.372 They are dangerous for other reasons. 00:37:18.372 → 00:37:19.552 Yes, they have nuclear weapons. 00:37:19.552 → 00:37:21.772 Their nukes aren’t great, but they do have them. 00:37:22.272 → 00:37:25.392 And they have enough to cause serious damage. 00:37:25.392 → 00:37:37.272 China is more of a threat because of the industrial might, the population, the ambitions, and a number of dozens of other things. 00:37:38.592 → 00:37:43.652 The ambitions are sort of a change from the history of how the Chinese viewed the world. 00:37:43.652 → 00:37:47.732 Because for a long time, and I said I wouldn’t get into the political science stuff, but here I’m going anyway. 00:37:48.612 → 00:37:51.612 For a long time, they sort of viewed themselves as the center of the universe. 00:37:51.612 → 00:37:52.472 That was their mindset. 00:37:52.472 → 00:37:54.092 And so why would I go anywhere? 00:37:54.092 → 00:37:55.452 I am the center of the universe. 00:37:55.452 → 00:37:56.092 I am China. 00:37:56.092 → 00:37:58.492 I don’t need anyone else or anything. 00:37:58.492 → 00:38:11.252 And then, of course, being conquered by the West a number of times, they recognized that, oh, maybe we’re not the center of the world, and maybe there is a rest of the world out there, and it’s relevant, and it matters. 00:38:11.252 → 00:38:15.272 So they shifted to have international ambitions. 00:38:16.472 → 00:38:18.472 That’s playing out a number of ways. 00:38:18.472 → 00:38:36.072 Another way that China is a threat, of course, is that China has a lot of stuff in our, for instance, electricity grid, that’s a huge vulnerability for us, incidentally, where they could sabotage us at the offset of a war. 00:38:36.072 → 00:38:37.592 They could shut down our grid. 00:38:37.592 → 00:38:40.832 That would be a major disadvantage for us. 00:38:40.832 → 00:38:46.552 The problem with that, and China recognizes this as well, because again, they’re rational actors, they’ve thought this through. 00:38:46.552 → 00:38:48.992 Well, what’s the game theory here? 00:38:48.992 → 00:38:57.792 What happens if you’re the United States, and you get dragged into war with China, and China shuts down your electrical grid? 00:38:57.792 → 00:39:16.012 Well, now you have a huge problem, because from the US perspective, a long war now gives China an advantage, because our infrastructure is damaged, and we probably can’t bring it back online, incidentally. 00:39:16.012 → 00:39:23.992 If they manage to blow enough transformers and things, we literally do not have the stockpile or the manufacturing capacity to replace them. 00:39:23.992 → 00:39:26.252 What does that leave us as options? 00:39:28.232 → 00:39:30.992 Long war gives China the advantage. 00:39:30.992 → 00:39:33.452 Short war gives us the advantage. 00:39:33.452 → 00:39:42.772 Well, now you have to go 100%, because now you have to win before those problems with your infrastructure actually become problems for your military. 00:39:42.772 → 00:39:46.192 It raises the risk of an actual nuclear exchange. 00:39:46.192 → 00:39:47.492 So the question is, will China do that? 00:39:47.492 → 00:39:49.332 Do they want to do that? 00:39:49.332 → 00:40:01.452 I don’t think they want to, but they might run the calculation to decide, we’ll roll the dice, because it maybe looks to them like it would be advantageous. 00:40:01.452 → 00:40:17.132 So yes, China is a major problem, and trying to address that problem is extremely difficult, because we have allowed them to become the problem they are, because we have invested untold billions of dollars into China. 00:40:17.132 → 00:40:20.372 We gave them all the technology they have. 00:40:20.372 → 00:40:22.892 We built their infrastructure. 00:40:22.892 → 00:40:28.492 We have created this monster, and it is a monster we will eventually have to confront. 00:40:28.492 → 00:40:33.572 So is there a way to avoid the conflict? 00:40:33.572 → 00:40:35.312 The only way to avoid it is China collapsing. 00:40:37.012 → 00:40:40.552 Their ambitions do not stop unless they collapse. 00:40:40.552 → 00:40:43.532 So, there are a number of ways to do that. 00:40:43.532 → 00:40:52.112 That is sort of a high-level political issue, and I don’t know that we have the men currently in positions of power who are competent enough to do that. 00:40:52.112 → 00:40:55.112 But the reality is that, yes, China is a major threat. 00:40:55.112 → 00:40:58.432 And I know some people are probably listening and thinking, well, about Russia. 00:40:58.432 → 00:41:01.172 Russia is not really much of a threat. 00:41:01.172 → 00:41:08.932 Russia has a lot of nuclear weapons, so Russia could cause an immense amount of damage to the world with those nuclear weapons. 00:41:08.932 → 00:41:12.252 But absent that, they’re not much of a threat. 00:41:12.252 → 00:41:14.232 Their military is not very strong. 00:41:14.232 → 00:41:15.852 They can’t project power very well. 00:41:15.852 → 00:41:18.712 I mean, look at what’s happening in the Ukraine. 00:41:18.712 → 00:41:22.132 That’s not very impressive for the Russian military. 00:41:22.132 → 00:41:25.512 So the reality is that Russia is just not that much of a threat. 00:41:25.552 → 00:41:29.672 They fund PSYOP campaigns and cause problems and sow division and things like that. 00:41:29.672 → 00:41:33.112 But, you know, the Jews are a lot better at it. 00:41:33.112 → 00:41:35.272 They’re a much bigger threat than the Russians. 00:41:35.272 → 00:41:40.492 Maybe Russia deserves to be in the top five, but they are nowhere near China. 00:41:44.052 → 00:41:46.052 Yes, the next question is also sort of related. 00:41:46.052 → 00:41:55.752 Do you think there is a genuine chance of victory, which is to say actual states, he says ethnostates here, but obviously, it’s almost a little redundant. 00:41:55.752 → 00:42:11.812 The case of states is not truly, ethnonationalism is, but anyway, ethnostates arise and triumph globally, the reduction of the Negro invasion, the radical left finally no longer a threat, no more trans agenda, et cetera. 00:42:11.812 → 00:42:16.012 Yes, I do think we have very good odds of victory. 00:42:16.012 → 00:42:23.392 I don’t know about global victory for other peoples as well, but I’m not as concerned about them, honestly. 00:42:23.392 → 00:42:24.352 I’m concerned about my people. 00:42:24.352 → 00:42:26.232 I’m concerned about us here in the United States. 00:42:26.232 → 00:42:30.292 I’m concerned about Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Europe. 00:42:30.292 → 00:42:31.592 That’s basically it. 00:42:31.592 → 00:42:35.232 I’m concerned about the European parts of the world, because they’re my people. 00:42:35.232 → 00:42:37.732 They’re the ones for whom I should have concern. 00:42:37.732 → 00:42:41.752 Again, concentric circles of care for people. 00:42:41.752 → 00:42:42.512 They’re my cousins. 00:42:42.512 → 00:42:43.112 I care about them. 00:42:43.112 → 00:42:46.312 I want what is best for them. 00:42:46.312 → 00:42:49.752 So do I think that we have chance of a genuine victory? 00:42:49.892 → 00:42:52.012 Yes, absolutely. 00:42:52.012 → 00:43:09.372 And I think that God is on our side, because even if it were not true that we were the only actual Christian part of the world, which we still are today, it would still be true that God made promises to Japheth and to his children. 00:43:09.372 → 00:43:11.012 And God’s word never fails. 00:43:11.012 → 00:43:13.272 His promises never fail. 00:43:13.272 → 00:43:16.352 He cannot do otherwise than preserve us. 00:43:17.032 → 00:43:23.732 That doesn’t mean he preserves us as masters of the entire world, which is where I want us to be again. 00:43:23.732 → 00:43:37.172 That is our rightful position, but is only our rightful position if we are Christian again, if we obey God, if we deserve that position, because we are faithful to God’s commands. 00:43:37.172 → 00:43:43.352 God’s promise does not entail that we will be masters of the entire world. 00:43:43.352 → 00:43:51.612 It entails that we will be Christendom, and so we have to have control of some sort of territory to actually be Christendom. 00:43:51.612 → 00:43:57.852 But I want a grander victory than mere survival. 00:43:57.852 → 00:44:03.572 I want a restoration of everything that we once had, and perhaps more. 00:44:03.572 → 00:44:07.332 That is the position in which our people should be, and so that is what I want. 00:44:07.332 → 00:44:13.072 But yes, the short answer to the question is, I do believe that there is a chance, and I do believe that we will win. 00:44:16.512 → 00:44:19.072 The next question, I’m actually going to take a sip of tea. 00:44:19.092 → 00:44:22.092 I’ll mute my mic so you don’t have to listen to me sip tea. 00:44:34.088 → 00:44:38.668 I guess there’s another irony here, I’m sipping tea and now I get to talk about the Constitution. 00:44:38.668 → 00:44:46.548 Little more tangential that time, more abstracted, but how should Christian nationalists view the Constitution? 00:44:46.548 → 00:44:49.568 How should we go about convincing people to stop idolizing it? 00:44:49.568 → 00:44:52.888 I think that second part sort of answers the first part a little bit. 00:44:54.728 → 00:45:00.408 But my problem with the Constitution is exactly what is asked in the second question there. 00:45:00.408 → 00:45:01.268 People idolize it. 00:45:02.028 → 00:45:04.168 They have made it into an idol. 00:45:04.168 → 00:45:19.028 And it’s almost an idol in the sort of traditional, you could call it, but the sort of ancient sense of people are praying to, worshiping this thing with no real thought behind it. 00:45:19.028 → 00:45:21.128 They’re just doing the thing. 00:45:21.128 → 00:45:29.868 They’re going through the motions because in this Constitution case, how many men who say they love the Constitution have ever read the thing? 00:45:30.888 → 00:45:35.108 I’m not even saying understand it, or have studied it. 00:45:35.108 → 00:45:38.268 I’m saying simply sat down and read it once. 00:45:40.208 → 00:45:43.428 Ask the next one who tells you he really loves the Constitution. 00:45:43.428 → 00:45:45.928 Ask him the last time he read it. 00:45:47.008 → 00:45:54.568 Watch him stumble around and fumble to try and find an answer that isn’t an outright lie, because he probably hasn’t read it. 00:45:54.568 → 00:45:59.228 I’m not saying that you can’t say that something is good, or you believe it’s good. 00:45:59.668 → 00:46:05.708 You can’t say, I know it’s good, because you haven’t read it, but if you haven’t read something, you can still believe that it’s good. 00:46:05.708 → 00:46:06.008 Right? 00:46:06.008 → 00:46:07.428 There are classic novels. 00:46:07.428 → 00:46:08.548 Men haven’t read. 00:46:08.548 → 00:46:10.048 They believe are good. 00:46:10.048 → 00:46:14.248 So can you believe the Constitution is good without reading it? 00:46:14.248 → 00:46:28.348 Yes, but if you are going to be one of those men who is so dedicated to the idea of the Constitution, you should probably read the document and at least know what it says, or at least try to understand it, because some of the language is old. 00:46:28.968 → 00:46:30.768 Men are going to have trouble understanding it. 00:46:30.768 → 00:46:32.528 Some of the language is legal and technical. 00:46:32.528 → 00:46:34.748 Men will have trouble understanding that. 00:46:34.748 → 00:46:40.448 So, how do we deal with the issue is sort of a more difficult question there. 00:46:40.448 → 00:46:43.188 Obviously, I sort of answered the question with how I view it. 00:46:43.188 → 00:46:44.228 I think that it is an idol. 00:46:44.228 → 00:46:45.328 I think that it is a problem. 00:46:45.328 → 00:46:47.148 I don’t think that it survives. 00:46:47.148 → 00:46:50.008 It’s not good for us, for our future. 00:46:50.008 → 00:46:51.788 It’s inadequate. 00:46:51.788 → 00:46:52.808 Is it per se bad? 00:46:52.808 → 00:46:58.168 I would even go so far as to say yes, because some of the things that it enshrines do run contrary to Christianity. 00:46:58.788 → 00:47:02.568 At least in terms of their interpretation. 00:47:02.568 → 00:47:09.268 I think also in terms of their essence for some of them, because they are an outgrowth of the Enlightenment. 00:47:09.268 → 00:47:14.328 And the Enlightenment was very much anti-Christian. 00:47:14.328 → 00:47:19.608 I know Woe is called it the enluciferment, which is kind of more difficult to say, which is why it makes me feel bad. 00:47:19.608 → 00:47:22.088 But when you write it, it looks very nice in writing. 00:47:22.088 → 00:47:24.168 It’s just a little difficult to say. 00:47:24.168 → 00:47:31.308 But really, it’s the same name, because what is Lucifer, the morning star, the light bringer, right? 00:47:31.308 → 00:47:34.588 So he masquerades as an angel of light. 00:47:34.588 → 00:47:40.228 Well, the enlightenment, I don’t even need to tell you what that means, because it’s the same words in English. 00:47:41.548 → 00:47:52.408 So that’s sort of the problem with the Constitution, is that it’s an outgrowth of those views which were almost explicitly, and in some cases, particularly in the French cases, explicitly anti-Christian. 00:47:52.408 → 00:47:59.468 And so I don’t think that Christians can preserve it in good conscience once they recognize the reality of it. 00:47:59.468 → 00:48:04.148 And so how do we go about disabusing people of these beliefs? 00:48:04.148 → 00:48:09.908 How do we go about getting people to stop idolizing the Constitution? 00:48:09.908 → 00:48:13.488 I think part of it is a generational thing. 00:48:13.488 → 00:48:21.108 Boomers generate, you know, boomers, again, it comes back to that so often, but boomers love the Constitution, they think. 00:48:21.108 → 00:48:23.288 It’s the same problem, as I said before, where they haven’t read the thing. 00:48:23.808 → 00:48:27.048 But boomers love the Constitution. 00:48:27.048 → 00:48:29.108 Right-wing boomers, of course, I’m not talking about the left. 00:48:29.108 → 00:48:32.468 The left pretend to love it when they can use it as a cudgel against the right. 00:48:32.468 → 00:48:33.688 That’s it. 00:48:33.688 → 00:48:37.288 But they’re always mercenary with their beliefs because they have no beliefs. 00:48:37.288 → 00:48:42.148 However, younger generations don’t care as much. 00:48:42.148 → 00:48:47.608 I know that I always say GenX doesn’t exist, which I still say, GenX does not exist. 00:48:47.608 → 00:48:50.268 GenX is split. 00:48:50.268 → 00:48:52.888 You have the older GenX, they’re young boomers. 00:48:53.308 → 00:48:57.268 And you have the young GenX, they’re old millennials, basically. 00:48:57.268 → 00:49:03.788 There’s nothing that really defines GenX in such a way that I think they should be divided into an explicit generation. 00:49:03.788 → 00:49:11.268 Also, incidentally, I think chopping people up into generations is an artifact of modernity, and I don’t think it’s good. 00:49:11.268 → 00:49:21.288 It is the reality, though, because the boomers were a distinct generation, developed in a distinct time with distinct beliefs and all these things that set them apart from everyone else. 00:49:21.868 → 00:49:30.328 In fact, from everyone else, because they’re set apart from their entire history, because they rejected and denigrate it. 00:49:30.328 → 00:49:32.988 So, the boomer’s the one to love it. 00:49:32.988 → 00:49:37.368 Millennials and younger don’t care as much, I say, as a millennial. 00:49:37.368 → 00:49:45.648 So, do we have a real problem with getting rid of the idolization of the Constitution? 00:49:45.648 → 00:50:02.168 I don’t think that we have as much of a problem as some might think, because millennials and younger, the men who are going to be open to our ideas at all, who are going to come over to our side, they want to win. 00:50:02.168 → 00:50:06.708 They want a good future for their children and for their grandchildren. 00:50:07.828 → 00:50:13.228 They don’t care about preserving this particular document or that particular document. 00:50:13.228 → 00:50:21.808 If it’s standing in the way of what needs to be done, and what we need to accomplish for our people, I don’t think millennials love any problem burning the thing. 00:50:21.808 → 00:50:23.328 I wouldn’t. 00:50:23.328 → 00:50:29.768 In fact, I’ve said publicly, that’s what I do, because burning idols is what God commands. 00:50:29.768 → 00:50:33.248 So I don’t think it’s going to be a real problem. 00:50:33.248 → 00:50:49.288 There are those where you kind of have to slow walk them through, well, look at this part, and then look at what scripture says, and then look at this part, and look at what scripture says, and you can kind of get them to recognize, well, maybe there are some problems here, because it’s saying the exact opposite. 00:50:49.848 → 00:50:52.168 That’s troubling in some ways. 00:50:52.168 → 00:51:14.428 So you can get some people to understand the reality of this thing in which they have invested a mistaken belief, but in many cases, it doesn’t matter, because it’s that generational divide, the boomers will die off, to be blunt, or at the very least, retire and live a life in retirement, not involved in this stuff. 00:51:15.328 → 00:51:21.548 So, yes, the Constitution has become an idol, but it’s not going to last, so it doesn’t matter that much. 00:51:23.788 → 00:51:26.628 Take another sip of tea before I get to the next question here. 00:51:36.941 → 00:51:45.501 So the next question is about, let me see this here. 00:51:49.961 → 00:51:57.941 Next question, similar to Gettl’s ontological proof, is there an absolute proof for Christianity specifically? 00:52:00.841 → 00:52:08.021 So I’m not going to go into Gettl’s ontological proof, modal ontological proof, because, well, there are a number of reasons. 00:52:08.021 → 00:52:09.021 I just won’t go into that here. 00:52:09.021 → 00:52:13.561 But is there, in essence, that proves the existence of God? 00:52:13.561 → 00:52:16.141 Okay, so that’s, absolutely it does. 00:52:16.141 → 00:52:18.141 It proves the existence of God, it’s entirely sound. 00:52:18.141 → 00:52:20.421 We can prove God exists. 00:52:20.421 → 00:52:22.001 And so there are a number of arguments for that. 00:52:22.001 → 00:52:23.801 There are probably six or seven that I like. 00:52:23.801 → 00:52:25.301 That’s one of the ones I like the most. 00:52:25.301 → 00:52:31.761 But is there a proof for the Christian God specifically? 00:52:32.861 → 00:52:41.901 Because there is a difference between proving God exists and proving Jesus Christ is God, right? 00:52:41.901 → 00:52:44.621 We all recognize those are two different claims. 00:52:46.561 → 00:52:49.101 So, I would say yes. 00:52:49.101 → 00:52:56.121 And the issue is, I don’t know if I want to get into the argument right now, because it takes a while to present. 00:52:56.121 → 00:52:57.961 But I can give the basic outline. 00:53:00.481 → 00:53:02.061 There are really two arguments I would make. 00:53:02.061 → 00:53:10.001 The first argument is the scriptural argument, which is just pointing out all of the things that people who are interested in this sort of apologetics will already know. 00:53:10.001 → 00:53:13.241 Scripture is very clearly not written by men alone. 00:53:13.241 → 00:53:20.681 There is an organizing intelligence behind it that exceeds human capacity. 00:53:20.681 → 00:53:29.761 And so, you have to recognize that Scripture was written by a being that is greater than man. 00:53:29.761 → 00:53:42.561 That doesn’t prove the Christian God, because it just proves God of some kind wrote Scripture, because you could have a God who wrote Scripture is not the Christian God, right? 00:53:42.561 → 00:53:48.781 That’s sort of getting into the weeds a little bit, but you can at least prove that Scripture is supernatural. 00:53:48.781 → 00:53:55.621 And in proving that Scripture is supernatural, you certainly lean toward the Christian God very heavily. 00:53:55.621 → 00:54:04.121 This is something, for instance, that you cannot do with the Book of Mormon, or with the Koran, or with the Talmud. 00:54:04.121 → 00:54:06.841 So that would be my first proof. 00:54:06.841 → 00:54:14.261 And I know that many atheists and agnostics and others, they don’t like that argument, but quite frankly, if they’re an atheist, they can’t understand Gödel anyway. 00:54:14.261 → 00:54:17.541 So at this point, you’ve already lost them. 00:54:17.541 → 00:54:19.241 You’re going to need to convince them with some other proof. 00:54:21.241 → 00:54:38.361 The proof that I personally like the most, and this is actually one that I’ve sort of developed, but the proof that I like the most for the Christian God is that you can actually build up from first principles to the necessity of the Trinity. 00:54:39.441 → 00:54:56.621 And I do believe that in doing that, coupled with traditional philosophical arguments, so for instance, with regard to God being the good, God being the true, coupled with that, you can prove the existence of the Christian God, the Triune God. 00:54:56.621 → 00:55:02.021 The basis of the argument would be just sort of an outline form. 00:55:02.021 → 00:55:15.321 You go starting from probably the infinite regress, I think that’s probably the best one, just to get quickly to the proof of there being an ultimate being, an absolute infinite, which is the best way, I think, to describe God in that philosophical sense. 00:55:16.181 → 00:55:28.521 Well, once you get to that, then you start asking the question, okay, if this God is unitary, would he ever do anything outside himself? 00:55:28.521 → 00:55:42.321 And I think the answer necessarily is no, because I think a unitary God would be perfect and contained within himself in such a way that nothing would ever be externalized. 00:55:42.401 → 00:55:46.861 He would simply exist and be all of existence for all time. 00:55:46.861 → 00:55:50.181 Time also not existing, but speaking in human terms. 00:55:51.401 → 00:56:07.241 So then the natural extension from that would be to ask, and I’m giving obviously the rough sense of this, not the full philosophy, but the next question obviously would be, okay, we don’t have a unitary God, do we have a dual God? 00:56:07.241 → 00:56:08.901 Do we have a God in two persons? 00:56:09.841 → 00:56:20.241 And I think, again, the answer is necessarily no, because I think that you have the same problem, but abstracted one level when it is only two persons. 00:56:20.241 → 00:56:31.161 Because with two persons, you have the inner relationship of the persons, imperfection, self-contained, wholly within itself, never externalizing anything. 00:56:31.161 → 00:56:34.181 It’s simply a back and forth between the two persons. 00:56:34.181 → 00:56:35.621 So I don’t think that solves the problem either. 00:56:36.861 → 00:56:50.761 But I think once you get to three persons, you inherently, in the nature of that jump from two to three, solve the problem of the fact that external things exist, which is really the problem I’m getting to. 00:56:50.761 → 00:56:55.141 And anyone who’s versed with philosophy is going to recognize the problem here. 00:56:55.141 → 00:57:01.641 But, and by problem, I mean the problem to which I’m offering the solution, not the problem with the argument, which I don’t believe exists. 00:57:04.121 → 00:57:16.141 With regard to that jump from two to three persons, you have an externalizing of the relationship, because basically you have an imparting of what is in essence movement, sort of a metaphysical movement in this case. 00:57:16.141 → 00:57:25.861 But you have a movement inherent in the relationship between and among three persons that is not there in the simple back and forth between two. 00:57:25.861 → 00:57:33.241 And so the three persons of the Trinity explains why we have anything external to God. 00:57:33.241 → 00:57:50.381 And so if you have the necessity of a triune God for the existence in order to explain the existence of a universe, because the universe being external to God in a certain sense, we know the universe exists, how do we explain that? 00:57:50.381 → 00:58:44.501 If you can build up that philosophical argument to saying that a triune God provides an explanation for that, and then you sort of come along side that with the argument that God is good, God being the absolute infinite, good having existence in itself, having proper existence, not being sort of parasitic like bad or evil is on other things and getting off of the philosophical weeds, but it’s the nature of the subject, if you can come alongside it with that argument, that it is only the good that has that substantial existence, and then you have the triune god, necessarily a god who is good, god being goodness, we’ve already established that at this point in the argument, you’re dealing with this hypothetical person, then necessarily he is going to leave proof of his existence in creation. 00:58:44.501 → 00:58:55.441 You are going to be able to find him because the deus absconditus or the hidden god, whatever argument you want to use, that’s not a good god. 00:58:55.441 → 00:59:04.341 A god who hides himself from his creation, who does not make himself known in some way to the things that he has created, is not a good god. 00:59:04.341 → 00:59:06.221 That’s the demiurge. 00:59:06.221 → 00:59:17.541 I don’t believe that exists, and I don’t think it’s philosophically coherent either because you’re saying that evil has a substantial existence, which evil is a deprivation of the good, not an essence in itself. 00:59:17.541 → 00:59:20.681 And so once you’ve established that, well, then you start looking. 00:59:22.621 → 00:59:24.641 Are there other triune gods? 00:59:24.641 → 00:59:28.041 Have there ever been any other triune gods? 00:59:28.041 → 00:59:30.081 The answer is no. 00:59:30.081 → 00:59:33.261 The god of scripture is the only triune god. 00:59:33.261 → 00:59:53.941 And so if you can establish philosophically the necessity of the Trinity, and you can establish philosophically, this one’s the easier part, that the absolute infinite is necessarily good, then you look for the consequences of that in creation, in the world as we find it, and you find only one triune god. 00:59:55.701 → 01:00:04.181 And I think that that necessarily leads to the conclusion that the Christian god is the only god, is the true god. 01:00:04.181 → 01:00:15.001 I think it’s absolutely unassailable philosophically, logically, and so anyone who understands Gettel’s proof for the existence of god is going to be able to follow that as well. 01:00:15.001 → 01:00:22.021 I believe, I firmly believe that, since it takes a certain sort of man and a certain sort of mind to understand Gettel in this case. 01:00:22.021 → 01:00:25.301 So someone who can do that can certainly follow that proof. 01:00:25.301 → 01:00:31.561 At some point, I’ll outline it more formally, but that’s the brief version of it. 01:00:34.821 → 01:00:44.501 So the next question, I think we’ve been going about an hour, so I don’t know if I’ll do one more question or maybe two or three. 01:00:44.661 → 01:00:52.261 I don’t, apparently OBS does not actually have a running timer. 01:00:52.261 → 01:00:54.721 That’s a neat feature. 01:00:54.721 → 01:01:00.181 So, at any rate, I will move on to the next question, at least do one more. 01:01:09.611 → 01:01:14.911 Do you consider Mark 16, nine through 20 to be inspired text? 01:01:14.911 → 01:01:23.311 If Mark 16, 16 is regarded as not inspired, does this weaken the Lutheran doctrine of baptism? 01:01:23.311 → 01:01:33.591 Well, I do think that they’re inspired, so I’m not sure that it would be relevant with regard to weakening the case for baptism. 01:01:33.591 → 01:01:36.571 I can answer it in the hypothetical, I guess. 01:01:36.571 → 01:01:43.811 If that part of Mark, and I’ll read the verse, so people who are unfamiliar with it know what I’m talking about here. 01:01:43.811 → 01:01:45.551 Many of you will already know it, of course. 01:01:45.551 → 01:01:50.271 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 01:01:50.271 → 01:02:04.691 Of course, we use that in our apologetics for the sacramental understanding of baptism, because it says whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, which of course leads into the Lutheran position of, is baptism necessary? 01:02:05.191 → 01:02:09.091 Yes, but not absolutely so, but yes. 01:02:09.091 → 01:02:12.371 I’ve explained that before, so I won’t go into that now. 01:02:12.371 → 01:02:30.811 If, as some argue, some try to say that the longer ending of Mark is not actually inspired, Lutherans don’t believe that, Roman Catholics don’t believe that, I don’t think Anglicans believe that, I don’t know how many have it in their confessions that the longer ending is part of Mark, or things like that. 01:02:31.391 → 01:02:39.331 We don’t have a canon in our confessions as Lutherans, so, which sounds weird to some people, but it’s just how we’ve always done things. 01:02:39.331 → 01:02:50.531 If you assume, for the sake of the hypothetical, that this is not in scripture, this is something that was added by someone else at some point, and it’s not inspired, it shouldn’t be there, right? 01:02:50.531 → 01:02:52.331 I don’t think it weakens our case for baptism at all. 01:02:52.331 → 01:03:10.711 I don’t think that this verse is necessary to the Lutheran case for baptism, because there are many other texts that deal with baptism specifically in a more expansive fashion than this one, because this sort of mentions it almost in passing, right? 01:03:10.711 → 01:03:16.511 It’s important, because it’s straight from the mouth of Christ, and of course, all scripture is breathed out by God, right? 01:03:16.511 → 01:03:23.191 But some portions are more valuable to us in certain circumstances than others. 01:03:23.191 → 01:03:25.131 Some are more important than others. 01:03:25.131 → 01:03:26.371 I’m perfectly comfortable saying that. 01:03:26.531 → 01:03:31.031 Some books of scripture are worth more than others. 01:03:31.031 → 01:03:40.231 But in this case, there are plenty of other places that address the doctrine of baptism, the nature of baptism as a sacrament. 01:03:40.231 → 01:03:43.371 I don’t think you need this one to build the argument. 01:03:43.371 → 01:03:48.831 Because, yes, there’s something to the power of cumulativeness, right? 01:03:48.831 → 01:03:58.891 That’s what I was doing with James White in that debate and why he got so uncomfortable when I kept asking those questions about things God cannot do, because it’s hammering home the point. 01:03:58.891 → 01:04:10.031 And so that’s part of the tactic when dealing with baptism, of course, because you can just keep listing these verses about baptism that very clearly teach it is not just water. 01:04:10.031 → 01:04:11.611 It is not something that man does. 01:04:11.611 → 01:04:14.351 It is something that God does. 01:04:14.351 → 01:04:19.431 This one is important, but it is not necessary. 01:04:19.431 → 01:04:21.971 There are other verses that do more for our argument. 01:04:22.111 → 01:04:23.471 So, I don’t think it weakens the argument. 01:04:23.471 → 01:04:25.071 It’s the short answer. 01:04:25.071 → 01:04:33.911 If this were hypothetically not part of scripture, we could lose this and still have our doctrine be the exact same thing that it currently is with regard to baptism. 01:04:36.251 → 01:04:38.511 Let’s see what the next question is. 01:04:38.511 → 01:04:39.611 Next question is a short one. 01:04:39.611 → 01:04:41.251 I’ll answer this as well. 01:04:41.251 → 01:04:43.431 Were the Khazars ethnically Jewish in any way? 01:04:43.431 → 01:04:46.971 I did touch on this in a previous episode. 01:04:46.991 → 01:04:51.071 But we’ll answer it again, and then just link to that as well. 01:04:52.831 → 01:04:55.751 The short answer is no. 01:04:55.751 → 01:04:56.751 They were not. 01:04:56.751 → 01:05:00.591 Now, did some Jews integrate into the population? 01:05:00.591 → 01:05:02.471 It seems like yes. 01:05:02.471 → 01:05:08.291 And did some of the upper class convert to Judaism? 01:05:08.291 → 01:05:09.651 Yes. 01:05:09.651 → 01:05:14.731 Do we have any evidence for a wholesale conversion of the people to Judaism? 01:05:14.731 → 01:05:14.831 No. 01:05:15.591 → 01:05:20.831 Do we have any evidence for a wholesale migration of that group? 01:05:20.831 → 01:05:21.771 No. 01:05:21.771 → 01:05:26.011 And are the Jews Kazarian? 01:05:26.011 → 01:05:26.711 No. 01:05:26.711 → 01:05:34.651 You can look at their genetics, you can look particularly at Y DNA, you can look at all of this evidence, and incidentally mitochondrial as well in many cases. 01:05:34.651 → 01:05:38.031 So it’s not just the male line, it’s also the female line in some cases. 01:05:38.031 → 01:05:47.511 Although with admixture, largely actually from southern Europe, Italy, in many cases, not from Eastern Europe, not from Kazzaria. 01:05:47.511 → 01:05:57.211 But you can look at the DNA, you can look at the hard evidence, and they actually come from the Middle East, the Near East. 01:05:57.211 → 01:05:58.011 That’s where they’re from. 01:05:58.011 → 01:06:01.751 So they are related to the ancient Israelites. 01:06:01.751 → 01:06:03.191 And you can see that also in their behavior. 01:06:03.191 → 01:06:06.591 They behave the same, it’s the same people, they’re doing the same things. 01:06:06.591 → 01:06:10.591 They’re still giving God the middle finger and trying to ruin everything around them. 01:06:11.211 → 01:06:13.111 That’s who they’ve always been. 01:06:13.111 → 01:06:14.411 And it is who they will always be. 01:06:20.343 → 01:06:22.803 Let’s see what else we have here. 01:06:28.528 → 01:06:32.408 I think that may be it for this episode. 01:06:32.408 → 01:06:47.588 There are more of the questions here that I have, of course, but I will not get to all of them tonight since we got through a handful here, not quite half of the 40-some-odd questions that I have going. 01:06:47.588 → 01:06:51.048 But I think I will call it here for tonight. 01:06:51.048 → 01:06:56.408 It’s been over an hour so far, and I try to keep these to, you know, an hour, hour and a half maybe. 01:06:56.408 → 01:06:59.708 Just depends on the questions and how long I go. 01:06:59.708 → 01:07:05.868 If it’s a more complicated answer, then I like to answer a few more questions so that it’s not just one really long answer. 01:07:05.868 → 01:07:14.968 But I will prepare answers to some of these because some of these are going to take a little bit longer, and some of them I think I have to look at some things. 01:07:14.968 → 01:07:19.248 I have some questions about things where I haven’t, like translations of scripture I’ve never looked at. 01:07:19.248 → 01:07:22.608 So those I’ll have to prepare the answers for next time. 01:07:22.608 → 01:07:24.848 But I think I will call it here. 01:07:24.848 → 01:07:26.668 Don’t want to keep any of you too long as well. 01:07:26.968 → 01:07:32.088 So, thank you for your time, and thank you for those who submitted questions. 01:07:32.088 → 01:07:34.888 Again, questions can be submitted on the forum. 01:07:34.888 → 01:07:36.148 That is the preferred method. 01:07:36.148 → 01:07:41.488 The link should be in the description for the video, regardless of which platform you’re using. 01:07:41.488 → 01:07:45.048 And it’s also linked in my Telegram chat and elsewhere. 01:07:45.048 → 01:07:48.788 So, I think that is it for this week. 01:07:48.788 → 01:07:54.468 I will be back next week, probably right about the same time, to answer more questions. 01:07:54.468 → 01:07:55.528 That’ll be episode eight. 01:07:56.388 → 01:07:57.568 So, again, thank you for your time. 01:07:57.568 → 01:07:58.528 Thank you for the questions. 01:07:58.528 → 01:08:02.248 Thank you for those who submit questions for the next episode. 01:08:02.248 → 01:08:11.128 I don’t know if I will get to them necessarily, if there are additional questions, because I still have so many to answer, but I will just keep adding them to the list. 01:08:11.128 → 01:08:16.308 And if you submit them on the forum, then other people can vote on them, and so they can sort of rise to the top. 01:08:16.308 → 01:08:19.908 I’ll try to prioritize those ones, unless they’re, again, something insane. 01:08:19.908 → 01:08:22.268 But it’s mostly been avoided thus far. 01:08:22.268 → 01:08:23.568 The questions have been very reasonable. 01:08:24.208 → 01:08:30.488 They’ve been good questions that I think it’s important to answer them and have the answer available for people. 01:08:30.488 → 01:08:36.648 As always, the audio will be available probably tomorrow, maybe Saturday. 01:08:36.648 → 01:08:38.868 Just depends on when I get that done. 01:08:38.868 → 01:08:44.528 The audio is a little bit higher quality than the stream, simply due to bitrate restriction and things like that. 01:08:44.528 → 01:08:51.128 But the audio-only version can be found at [podcast.coreyjmoller.com](http://podcast.coreyjmoller.com). 01:08:53.328 → 01:08:57.408 That’s also my website, incidentally, without the podcast in the front. 01:08:57.408 → 01:09:00.148 And I think that pretty much covers it for this week. 01:09:00.148 → 01:09:03.188 Again, thank you to all of you, and have a great evening. 01:09:03.188 → 01:09:04.768 I will see you next week. 01:09:04.768 → 01:09:05.128 God bless.