**The Video that Ph.D. Scholars Don't Want Christians to See! | SP. DISP. 2 | Dr. Gene Kim — Transcript & Summary | SozAI**
Source: https://sozai.app/transcript/video-phd-scholars-dont-want-christians-see/

Explores spiritual dispensationalism, its academic and theological support, and contrasts literal vs allegorical Bible interpretation.

## Key Takeaways

- Spiritual dispensationalism provides a valid, multi-layered interpretation of scripture supported academically and theologically.
- King James Bible manuscripts from Antioch are foundational to correct Christian doctrine and dispensationalism.
- Allegorical interpretation leads to doctrinal errors and is favored by liberal theology and many modern Bible versions.
- Historical-literal interpretation aligns with the original intent and context of biblical texts.
- Truth seekers benefit from an unbiased study of spiritual dispensationalism for clearer understanding of scripture.

## What the video covers

- Introduces spiritual dispensationalism as a biblical interpretation method recognizing multiple applications of scripture.
- Explains how God's words can have multiple meanings across different time periods and groups due to His eternal nature.
- Presents academic support for spiritual dispensationalism, including acknowledgment from unbelieving scholars like Bart Ehrman.
- Discusses the theological necessity and scriptural validity of this interpretive framework.
- Highlights the historical significance of Antioch as the first place Christians were called and its relation to King James Bible manuscripts.
- Contrasts King James only dispensationalism with other Bible versions derived from Alexandrian manuscripts and allegorical interpretation.
- Critiques allegorical interpretation used by many denominations and scholars for deviating from literal biblical meaning.
- Emphasizes the importance of historical-literal hermeneutics as a common-sense approach to scripture.
- Addresses the bias in theological hermeneutics favoring systematic theology and harmonization over literal interpretation.
- Encourages truth seekers to consider spiritual dispensationalism without religious or worldview bias.

## Chapters

1. 00:00 Introduction to Spiritual Dispensationalism
2. 03:25 Academic Support for Spiritual Dispensationalism
3. 06:37 Historical Significance of Antioch and King James Manuscripts
4. 10:01 Critique of Allegorical Interpretation
5. 12:26 Historical and Theological Hermeneutics
6. 19:08 Theological Hermeneutics and Systematic Theology
7. 22:47 Summary and Encouragement for Truth Seekers

Answers

## Questions about this video

What is spiritual dispensationalism?

Spiritual dispensationalism is a biblical interpretation method that recognizes multiple applications of scripture across different time periods and groups, based on God's eternal nature.

Why is Antioch important in Christian doctrine?

Antioch is historically significant as the first place where disciples were called Christians and is linked to the manuscripts used for the King James Bible, foundational for correct doctrine.

How does allegorical interpretation differ from dispensationalism?

Allegorical interpretation spiritualizes scripture and often deviates from literal meaning, while dispensationalism emphasizes a historical-literal approach aligned with the original context.

## Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown

00:00

Speaker A

Okay, spiritual dispensationalism. Fresh review. Those of you who have not watched part one, please watch part one on our channel, and it will explain spiritual dispensationalism. We have a playlist on our channel, and it's simply titled Spiritual Dispensationalism.

00:22

Speaker A

So, you should find part one very easily there. Now, this is going to be part two.

00:30

Speaker A

Part one, remember, we've discovered when we read through the word of God, there is a double, triple, or multiple application when you look at the verse. Why is that? The reason why is because it's the word of God, not the word of man. So, when God

00:50

Speaker A

is speaking, He could see multiple people within that one verse or multiple time periods ongoing.

00:59

Speaker A

How He is able to do that is because His words are spiritual and God is spirit.

01:06

Speaker A

Being a spirit, it's not bound by time. God is always present tense, "I am that I am." So, when He's speaking, out of that verse that He's speaking, He could see five different time periods going on, five different groups of

01:22

Speaker A

people going on. Now, I've demonstrated with plenty of verses to convincingly prove that. So, I've convinced you that the spiritual dispensationalism is an undoubtable, clear, valid interpretation that even the Jews, Jews who do not believe in New Testament

01:44

Speaker A

doctrine, and even liberals or unbelievers, and no matter what kind of denomination or doctrinal background you have, they all have to agree that there is a spiritual interpretation in there. And that it can be a double or triple application

02:02

Speaker A

through the spiritual interpretation. Do we follow so far? Okay. Now, we're going to cover three areas. Today, I'm going to cover only the one, okay?

02:13

Speaker A

This spiritual interpretation method that has double application or meaning is a valid interpretation method because academics support it. And I mean academics, I mean unbelieving academic scholars.

02:31

Speaker A

So, let's take one of the most famous ones, Bart Ehrman. So, he will have to admit that this interpretation method, that there is something to this, okay?

02:44

Speaker A

So, unbelieving scholars will have it. Now, I think that Mr. Ehrman doesn't really know about it yet, okay? Because he's for the historical criticism side, I believe. But, y'all don't know that term, you will know today, believe it or

02:58

Speaker A

not. So, I'll give you all the terms. So, today will be where we're going to go through all the boring educated stuff, okay? But, if you're—yes. So, if you're interested in that kind of stuff, however, you'll like it.

03:11

Speaker A

However, it won't be at a PhD level. I'm going to make it—I'm going to break it down so anybody can understand, okay? That's usually my job and my forte, right? Is to take something complicated and make it as

03:25

Speaker A

simple as possible. All right. So, the academic side will support it. Second thing we're going to look at is the theological side. So, theologically, why this system of interpretation has to be true.

03:42

Speaker A

The other one, which we saw last week, was scriptural. Scripturally, no doubt, right? Scripturally, no doubt.

03:51

Speaker A

But, how does that framework work with the academic realm and the theological realm? When we hit the theological realm, it's going to go whoa right here. The academic realm, it will make you more confident that what I'm teaching you,

04:09

Speaker A

that I am getting on to something. Okay? There's absolutely no doubt about it. Now, when I went to graduate school and then, uh, praise the Lord, they gave me an A on that, okay? So, I didn't obviously give it in a Bible

04:25

Speaker A

believing perspective, lest I be put out of the synagogue, right? But, I put it in terms where they admitted that this was valid and they said it was carefully argued and they gave me an A to A+ on it. So, this is something that

04:42

Speaker A

is academically accepted even in PhD level, okay? So, what I'm giving to you is PhD level, but I'm going to break it down in such basic terms that anyone can understand.

04:54

Speaker A

The scholars will disagree with me and that's fine. It's because I broke it down in such layman's terms that they're going to accuse it as not PhD level. I could care less, okay? All I care about is the people who are searching for

05:08

Speaker A

truth, who will check me out, and then they pray about it or if they're an unbeliever, they'll at least seek the truth and seek the possibility, okay?

05:18

Speaker A

So, this is for truth seekers. If you're that type, if you're not biased, religiously biased, or you have your own worldview biased, then this teaching will be very eye-opening. Okay. First of all, let's go through history, okay?

05:34

Speaker A

This will be mingled with so much of my Christian viewpoint that it's going to be a Christian teaching obviously here.

05:43

Speaker A

So, that's the only bias. However, once I give out some of the academic stuff, then even the scholars will have to admit that I'm on to something, okay?

05:53

Speaker A

First things first, okay? Acts chapter 11. Acts chapter 11. Where were the disciples first called Christians? Antioch, right?

06:07

Speaker A

Now, historically, there is no doubt that Antioch was an epicenter of Christianity or at least one of the epicenters.

06:16

Speaker A

Antioch is from Syria. Now, because of Antioch, there's something very interesting about this location. This is where the KJ—the manuscripts for the King James Bible came from, okay?

06:37

Speaker A

So, our manuscripts for the King James Bible. Now, we are King James only dispensationalists, right?

06:45

Speaker A

Dispensationalism will solve 90% of wrong doctrine out there. Now, dispensationalism is a hermeneutical method. In other words, it is a biblical interpretation method. It's a system that a lot of people recognize.

07:03

Speaker A

That system comes from a historical, grammatical interpretation or we could say historical literal. In other words, when you look at the Bible verse, we take it literally as it says. And then we apply it to the right historical time period. Why? Already,

07:29

Speaker A

that's dispensationalism, is it not? But, believe it or not, you're going to be shocked, that is a common sense method that Bart Ehrman and other scholars are using.

07:43

Speaker A

Then why aren't they dispensationalists, you might ask, right? Well, we'll come to that a little later.

07:48

Speaker A

But, first, let's lay the groundwork of Christianity. So, this is where Christians were first called is in Antioch. So, wouldn't that be a reliable place to get right Christian doctrine?

08:02

Speaker A

Why would you land all the way to Egypt? So, that's the one that messed everything up. So, Egypt, for some of you who don't know, that is the enemy area for Christians. Alexandria is where you get the manuscripts for the

08:20

Speaker A

different modern Bible versions, for some of you who didn't know that. So, the different Bibles, let's just put NIV because that's like King, okay?

08:30

Speaker A

But, that's the reason why you'll get the English Standard Version, the New King James Version, the New International Version, the New American Standard Version, and every other Bible out there that is not ordinary King James Version only, they all borrow or

08:51

Speaker A

adapt from Alexandrian manuscript readings, okay? Now, then how's their interpretation method? It is a historical fact that everyone knows, they go by allegorical interpretation.

09:07

Speaker A

What is allegorical interpretation? You might recall from our part one teaching, this is what cults and theologians, Christian denominations of wrong doctrines, they all use this method. In other words, when you look at a verse, they don't take it literally as

09:25

Speaker A

it says. They try to spiritualize it and find some meaning in it. So, I've given you an example, William Lane Craig, who's a probably one of the best Christian apologists or scholars in debating.

09:39

Speaker A

Even that guy couldn't get Genesis 3 right where little kids in Sunday school know.

09:46

Speaker A

So, the serpent in the Garden of Eden who tempted Eve, he doesn't think that it's really a serpent or the devil that tempted Eve to partake in the fruit. He thinks it's something else, be that it was some allegorical meaning behind it

10:01

Speaker A

and it's, "Oh, stop," okay? Stop. For a guy who's so smart, you stretch things. But, one thing you'll notice is smart people really love the allegorical interpretation. Why? They don't want God to tell you what the

10:17

Speaker A

tell you what the verse means and make you go, "Oh, wow, that's so smart. I never thought of it that way." Exactly.

10:22

Speaker A

See that? They they want to put their own intellect with their interpretation there. That you got to watch out for.

10:28

Speaker A

Okay, so this is the allegorical interpretation from Alexandria. Now that we understand this, let's go to Acts chapter 11. Notice right here, this is the place that you want to find the right history, the right interpretation, the right Bible, your

10:46

Speaker A

right beliefs. They all come from this region, historically speaking. Amen. Acts chapter 11 verse 22.

10:55

Speaker A

Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem.

11:00

Speaker A

And they sent forth Barnabas that he should go as far as Antioch. Who when he came and had seen the grace of God was glad and exhorted them all that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man and full

11:14

Speaker A

of the Holy Ghost and of faith. And much people was added unto the Lord. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus for to seek Saul.

11:22

Speaker A

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church and taught much people and the disciples were called what? Christians. Christians first.

11:37

Speaker A

Not in Rome. So, why would you want to get your right beliefs from Rome? Not in Alexandria.

11:44

Speaker A

So, why would you want to get your right Christian beliefs from Alexandria? Christians first in where?

11:50

Speaker A

Antioch. So, it is a historical fact that Antioch that they that in their region, which is Syria, that's where your manuscripts for the King James Bible came from. They'll call it Byzantine manuscripts. Some will call it traditional text, etc. But, who

12:08

Speaker A

cares, all right? Point is all scholars know that. Yep. And I'm saying all scholars, even unbelieving ones, they know that.

12:16

Speaker A

Antioch is also known for its historical literal interpretation. And who believes that? All scholars know that, too. All of them.

12:26

Speaker A

Now, before we continue on, let me give the rundown here. So, when we go through the timeline of Antioch another chart.

12:42

Speaker A

Okay, here we go. Let me move this guy. Is he still showing? Yeah, he's Is Is he still showing or no? I can't see that.

12:55

Speaker A

Yeah, he is showing, right? Uh no, no, no. No. Okay, it's gone? Mhm. Okay, sorry. All right.

13:05

Speaker A

Let me draw out a different timeline. I shouldn't have I should keep this that way people don't get lost.

13:16

Speaker A

Okay, I got an idea. Let's get rid of this. Okay. All right, here's another timeline here.

13:32

Speaker A

So, this is first century. And then here we go to Antioch and Alexandria, okay?

13:45

Speaker A

This is Antioch and Alexandria. Now, there are two works that you can look up that will support my statements.

14:01

Speaker A

Now, one that you want to look at, let's see here. Andrew Louth, Discerning the Mystery, an essay on the nature of theology.

14:16

Speaker A

So, that's one. And he has a chapter specifically related to Antioch, okay? The other book is Let's see here.

14:32

Speaker A

Eugene J. Pentic, p e n t i u c, Pentic. His book is The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity. So, Pentic and Louth, it's based off of Pentic and Louth. Now, there's one more that I want to give, so

14:53

Speaker A

Is he crossed out, Pentic? Rob. Nope. Okay, Pentic, Louth. And then De Piet Pietro G. R. De Villiers.

15:14

Speaker A

I don't read French. All right. All right, then. Max is French, so he knows what I how I'm pronouncing it correctly. So, All right, so Pentic, Louth and De Villiers, Villiers, whatever. Okay.

15:29

Speaker A

The name of his article is The Role of Theology in the Interpretation of the Bible. The Role of Theology in the Interpretation of the Bible.

15:39

Speaker A

Towards a synergy between theological and historical approaches to biblical studies okay? So, that's online, so you can just put that in slow mode and then write it all down okay?

15:53

Speaker A

But, these three will point out what I'm about to give to you, all right? So, a lot of a lot of the things will be based off of those three. All right, now.

16:06

Speaker A

I'll just say De Villiers, okay? De Villiers. And if I butcher the name, I butcher the name, okay?

16:14

Speaker A

De Villiers, he mentions that it is common sense knowledge among the academia that during the first century, think about this, okay? This is how unbeliever scholars critique your Bible, okay?

16:32

Speaker A

Pay attention. First century, if you're writing a verse, that they would literally apply it to them.

16:42

Speaker A

Well duh. Yeah. Then how did you get into allegorical? Yeah. If I wrote you a letter, what are you going to do? Take it allegorically?

16:51

Speaker A

Yeah, come on. Duh. Now, that's like a big light bulb. Then where did this allegorical hermeneutic come from?

17:00

Speaker A

It's a duh statement. Look at other historical artifacts then, right? Isn't it just common sense? If you're going to write to an audience, you're going to write literally to them and at their historical time period?

17:16

Speaker A

So, it's just Notice historical literal. Well duh. Now, I'll explain how the unbelievers took advantage of that, all right? Cuz that's just common sense.

17:32

Speaker A

That's why the unbelievers See, that's why they keep finding contradictions in your Bible. They study the historical time period and try to make guesswork on what really happened at that time period and why they wrote the verse that way.

17:50

Speaker A

See that? That's why Bart Ehrman is able to try to chop up the Bible, try to make Christians doubt if those verses are really written by Christians.

18:01

Speaker A

If they were written by the winners of the history that time. Or if it was the real original Christianity was lost that time because the winners of history were the ones who wrote the book, etc.

18:14

Speaker A

But, the point is, see, that's why this historical literal method is common sense. Unbelieving scholars use that.

18:24

Speaker A

Now, that is known as historical criticism okay? So, historical criticism, I'm going to put it right here.

18:39

Speaker A

Let me know if it's chopped up, okay? All good. Okay, historical criticism is where they look at the verse and then study it historically.

18:52

Speaker A

So, then they look at the historical time period and a lot of times these guys make a lot of guesswork out of it on why they wrote the verse that way.

19:00

Speaker A

That's why their arguments are not really that persuasive. However, the point is is that they look at the verse at the historical time period that it's at, why they wrote it out that way. And obviously, they take look at the wording of the verse

19:14

Speaker A

and then they judge the wording of that verse, literally every word in that verse. See that? And then they are able to make guesswork on the tone of the author, the belief of the author, why he wrote it that way.

19:29

Speaker A

Now, notice right here, this is very a dispensational mindset. Yeah. Cuz we look at the historical time period where that verse is at, but we take every word as it says. And by the wording of the verse, we can tell this

19:43

Speaker A

is Jewish in tone. This is Gentile in tone. This is Pauline doctrine, church age, Pauline in tone.

19:53

Speaker A

Okay. Is that already opening up a whole can of worms? Now, I'm going to connect it all together, okay?

20:00

Speaker A

As I go one by one in history. So, this is just common sense. Then where did allegorical come from? These dimwits over here in Egypt.

20:09

Speaker A

So, these dimwits in Egypt, which destroyed everything and because they think they're smarter than God, they just damned a whole bunch of people. That's where Roman Catholicism came from, okay?

20:23

Speaker A

Roman Catholicism came thanks to these knuckleheads. That's where church fathers came. So, that's another one, church fathers.

20:30

Speaker A

Okay. Now, get this, okay? Why did church fathers, why did Alexandrians adopt the allegorical method?

20:44

Speaker A

They adopted the allegorical method because during that time there were a lot of heresy spreading about, gnostics and other heretical groups. These are the groups, the weirdos that Bart Ehrman's trying to justify, okay? Which makes sense why he's a weirdo himself,

21:01

Speaker A

okay? So, the point is is that the ones who are not part of the mainstream Christian early churches, the majority of early churches, came out these weird little cults that came out.

21:13

Speaker A

Weird little groups, the gnostics and then these kind of Christian mystics and all that.

21:19

Speaker A

So, the mainstream Christians, they were at a debacle. They were debating these guys. These guys, because they studied tone and then the literary forms, because see, they're twisting scripture, see that?

21:38

Speaker A

So, because they're doing that, the church fathers had to learn allegorical methods to play at their own game and be able to defend what they think to be the Christian truth through that.

21:53

Speaker A

But, here's the problem, okay? What men learn from history is that men never learn from history.

21:59

Speaker A

Uh what Christians, unfortunately, tend to do is when they have some weapon that they can use for the Lord, they tend to abuse it, right?

22:08

Speaker A

All right, Christian keep that history keeps repeating itself, which is why I keep emphasizing so much uh in my past advanced discipleship lessons on devotional topics that we have to be very careful about these unconscious mistakes, these abuses that we unconsciously make.

22:30

Speaker A

Okay? I'm very adamant on that. Very, very adamant on that. Remember, there's always an extreme when you're doing something on both sides, there's an extreme. So, you always have to see if you're on one side of the extreme. If you always do that, you'll

22:45

Speaker A

keep yourself in check, okay? Your spiritual walk will be fine. Well, anyway, these guys didn't do that. So, what they use for allegorical methods, then, you know, what happens? Then it's abused, then it's stretched, then you come up with weird Catholic teachings.

23:03

Speaker A

The Catholic Church during the Middle Ages championed the allegorical method. So, the allegorical method, remember, it came from Alexandria.

23:15

Speaker A

And then it came from those church fathers. Because church fathers are educated. Alexandria's educated. See that? Birds of a feather flock together.

23:28

Speaker A

You can see why I am very anti I am very anti-scholar, okay? Because from what I see in history is that man's intellect is the one that dictates how God should run things, how you should interpret the Bible. I hate that so

23:43

Speaker A

much, okay? Never, ever, ever. All right? I hate that so much. Uh that's why Uh anyway, I'm not going to get off on them okay?

23:52

Speaker A

All right. Uh educa- education is what uh these people use and the Catholic Church is obviously very educated.

24:05

Speaker A

Now theologians if you talk about theologians today, they're pretty much frowned upon. But, if you go back to the Dark Ages, theologians are the most intelligent people, you have to realize. It's not the scientists those days, it was

24:23

Speaker A

theologians. Because theologians were the ones who learned about the science. A lot of people don't understand this. I know that we poke we think that being a pastor is not really an educated task, but if you were to seriously think about

24:38

Speaker A

it, the pastor's job is the hardest job in the world. Because they have to know legal matters, government matters, the doctrine and if you're talking about Christian Christian doctrine, you have to explore all kinds of other subjects that go against it, scientific,

24:59

Speaker A

historical etc. But, the genius thing, which is why they're more respected, is they break it down in layman's term.

25:08

Speaker A

You are not respected as a scholar when you go gibber-jabber and it's unclear to your student audience.

25:14

Speaker A

What makes you a scholar that's highly respected is that you know all these complicated terminologies and subjects, but you can break it down in a way where the layman can understand have to deal with crises, death in the family, counseling,

25:32

Speaker A

heartbreaks, traumas. See that? That's the hardest job in the world, you have to realize.

25:39

Speaker A

So, it's probably the most respected job, but a lot of people don't think about that.

25:43

Speaker A

But, anyway, if we were to go back here, the Catholic Church theologians, they were scholars. They're the ones that dominated the Ivy League schools, so to speak. Everybody respected them.

25:56

Speaker A

And since they're educated, obviously, their interpretation was allegorical. So, allegorical interpretation was key to interpreting scripture for the Catholic Church. That's the reason why you can see why probably one of the most easiest religions to debunk in the Bible is Catholicism.

26:23

Speaker A

Why? It is so anti-scripture. Why is it anti-scripture? Because when you read the verse literally as it says, it doesn't match with Catholic doctrine.

26:34

Speaker A

So, then how did they get away with it? Allegorical, see that? You always make it figurative and then you go around it.

26:41

Speaker A

Plus, the common man was not able to have the word of God in his hand or in his own language.

26:46

Speaker A

So, he could not objectively search for the truth through the Bible. That's why the Protestant Reformation changed everything.

26:58

Speaker A

The Protestant Reformation was a time period that championed objective interpretation from the word of God.

27:11

Speaker A

And that is admitted by uh Louth. That is admitted by Louth. Louth actually does not like it. He doesn't like He doesn't believe in objective interpretation of scripture, but I could care less what Louth thinks. He just he even my opponent admits that that's

27:29

Speaker A

historically true, see? So, what I'm giving to you is not made up. So, objective scriptural interpretation is not from Alexandria.

27:38

Speaker A

It's not from the church fathers. It's not from the Catholic Church. It is from the reformers. Now, if we're going to talk about our Baptist heritage, the Baptist were long before those reformers. So, I don't want to give too

27:52

Speaker A

much credence to those Calvinists. But, we go way back, but the era that most people recognize is Protestant Reformation, so I'm going to do that.

28:03

Speaker A

Objective interpretation. Literal interpretation. Martin Luther, who started the Protestant Reformation era, he hated allegorical method.

28:22

Speaker A

He despised the church fathers' interpretation of scripture because it's not objective. So, notice right here, historical literal interpretation is objective.

28:35

Speaker A

Then what's the danger of allegorical interpretation? It's not objective. You can't find truth. Why? You can interpret the verse however way you want it to.

28:45

Speaker A

Okay? So, that's our history here. Now, what happened? Look at history here, okay? Look at history.

28:56

Speaker A

As time passed by, Protestant Reformation, then Great Awakening revivals. Revivals spread out everywhere. Europe was falling into darkness. They come from a Protestant heritage.

29:11

Speaker A

So, here are scholars who come from a Protestant society or a Protestant family. But, these scholars, they either backslide or they were never saved to begin with.

29:22

Speaker A

And you know who can be the the most demonic people? Those who have a Christian background, but forsake it and go for the devil.

29:31

Speaker A

You want a great example? Bart Ehrman. Bart Ehrman came from a Christian upbringing, but now he became atheist.

29:39

Speaker A

But, now he's loved and adored and Satan exalted him in a respectable position. You want a respectable position? Go deep into serving God as Bible believer getting right doctrine, but you go one total 180.

29:52

Speaker A

Then the devil will bless you. I gave you a secret if you want to be physically prosperous.

30:02

Speaker A

That's what I believe when I see history. It's interesting Karl Marx, Albert Einstein, and all those and Charles Darwin, and all these guys.

30:10

Speaker A

All these guys who paved the way for liberalism, atheism, and all kinds of wickedness, they all came from some kind of Christian influence.

30:19

Speaker A

Okay? But anyway, what men learn from history is that men never learn from history, right? I keep saying.

30:26

Speaker A

So, here comes the liberal theologians or unbelieving scholars. So, they attack the Bible. When they look at it, now when an unbeliever looks at the word of God, what's he going to do?

30:45

Speaker A

He his unbelieving perspective is going to look at that history and his own literal interpretation.

30:53

Speaker A

Now, use your head now. If you're an unbeliever, you don't believe in that book, you don't believe in Christianity, you're going to try to find a non-Christian application historically.

31:05

Speaker A

You're going to try to find a non-Christian way to look at it literally. That's how Bart Ehrman comes up with his interpretation. See that?

31:15

Speaker A

That's how the unbelievers get out with their interpretation. See that? So, even though they use a historical literal interpretation, get this now, it's in a non-Christian way.

31:29

Speaker A

Now, when we look we Christians read the Bible historically literally, why do we come up with Christian beliefs? Because we're looking at through a Christian lens.

31:39

Speaker A

See that? That makes a full big difference. A non-Christian lens versus a Christian lens. An unbeliever's lens through a say believer's lens.

31:50

Speaker A

So, what will they find? They'll find contradictions obviously. They'll find problems. That's why they'll look at it so literally and historically that if you look at the first five books of Moses, they see different authors there. Not the same

32:06

Speaker A

author of Moses. If you look at the book of Isaiah, they're going to argue that there were first half was one author, the second half was another author, and we don't really know if Isaiah was the author of

32:17

Speaker A

those two. Why? Cuz they're literally looking at every word and seeing the tone, the literary forms, the language, and everything. Literary expressions, literary devices. See, they're literally going word for word here.

32:34

Speaker A

Then they cherry-pick history and find something in history that will support their biased interpretation of what of looking at that verse.

32:48

Speaker A

So, that's why objective interpretation is debated. So, who will rescue the scene? Those Christians will rescue the scene, obviously. But, if you've been influenced by the Catholic Church, see that? Now, during this time period, the Christians were already compromising

33:09

Speaker A

with Rome. They had the modern Bible version start out. Uh when Christians were entering the field of scholarship, they befriended Catholic scholars.

33:21

Speaker A

So, these are their enemies. So, who's going to save the day of Christianity? This Catholic Protestant Christian form and the what would make sense to attack the historical literal objective interpretation, where do you go back to?

33:41

Speaker A

See that? They're heroes because they're educated Christians. Church fathers, educated Christians. Their interpretation is so brilliant.

33:51

Speaker A

Well, we have to play the level of scholarship here. So, why not go back to the intellectual Christians back then?

34:00

Speaker A

See that? So, the allegorical is king in theology today. You study theology, the king interpretation is allegorical interpretation.

34:18

Speaker A

So, how do they deal with it? If it's unbelieving scholar points out a contradiction in the verse, for example, James chapter 2, faith without works is dead, and then Romans chapter 4, uh it is not you are justified not by

34:31

Speaker A

works, but by faith. Abraham was justified by faith, not by works, Romans 4. But James 2 says, "No, Abraham was justified by faith and works." A Catholic and a Christian will give you the same interpretation because they're so used to allegorizing verses, telling

34:47

Speaker A

you what it means, not what it says. So, atheists, it is famous amongst atheists that they'll use Romans 4 and James 2 as a contradiction. Why? When you read it as it says, they don't match.

35:04

Speaker A

Let's be honest. That's an objective interpretation. Let's see, Catholic Christian cannot do that. So, they're going to insist right here, "Well, what it really means here So, then they go around it.

35:19

Speaker A

Okay, the unbelievers, their method of interpretation, which we saw, is historical criticism. That's what it is.

35:31

Speaker A

The Christians, what is that called? That's called theological hermeneutics. Doesn't that sound intellectual? You feel so safe now with your Christianity. It's defended by fancy wording.

35:50

Speaker A

You know what that sounds like to me when I translate this theological hermeneutics? Depending whatever theology you can believe, you can do playground with whatever interpretation you want with the Bible. What does that mean? That means you're messing with the

36:02

Speaker A

word of God. But they're used to messing around with the word of God with 200 plus modern Bible versions, and they're still not done yet.

36:11

Speaker A

See, I really don't like this. All right? I really don't like this. I blame apostasy in our world, not at the liberals or at the atheists. It's our Christians.

36:22

Speaker A

They're the ones responsible. If they held onto right doctrine the right way, then they would have the grounds to de- to fight against the liberalism, atheism, the unbelieving world. But when the Christians grow cold and apostate, you lose the power of God to combat all

36:36

Speaker A

that. Okay, but anyway, theological hermeneutics, okay. What happened here? So, with theological hermeneutics, they revived the Alexandrian method of allegorical interpretation.

36:52

Speaker A

Okay, and we all lived happily ever after. The end. What do we do with this mess? Where did dispensationalism come from, right?

37:01

Speaker A

Okay, so theologians and Christians, obviously, study more Bible than unbelievers. So, they have a wealth of arsenal of so many different systems of interpretation.

37:13

Speaker A

But, it's mainly two, which I will simplify for you. The simple the simplified two is called which Okay.

37:27

Speaker A

Is this cut off? Okay. Biblical theology and the second is systematic theology. Okay, what is this? Biblical and systematic. Biblical theology is where it's literally studying the books so that they can determine the author better.

37:51

Speaker A

They look at the verses, and then they look at the context. Systematic, they don't just divide it into verses, chapters, and books. They look at it holistically and then see how the verses harmonize to together. See, it's systematized. See

38:08

Speaker A

that? So, they're able to come up with a system that harmonizes all the verses together.

38:16

Speaker A

Biblical theology, because they're concentrating on books, chapters, and verses, it's not as systematized. See that?

38:23

Speaker A

Now, a lot of unbelievers, believe it or not, they they would favor or they come from the biblical theology approach, and you can guess why.

38:33

Speaker A

Because of looking at the context of the book, the wording of the passage, then they come up with a different author, right?

38:43

Speaker A

They come up with historical time period that only applied to that book. That's why Bart Ehrman, uh he thinks uh that Paul was the one, and he would come up with his own Pauline perspective that Paul was the

38:58

Speaker A

one who really made up today's Christianity. Paul was the one who fouled up everything that the apostles and Jesus Christ really did.

39:08

Speaker A

That our version of Christianity is more from Paul. So, that's what some unbelieving uh scholars, and that's what Bart Ehrman, if he doesn't believe in that, he he pushes that or gives that idea a lot.

39:22

Speaker A

So, biblical theology would be more attracted to the historical criticism or that atheist mindset.

39:30

Speaker A

You can see that theological hermeneutics, they would really like the systematic theological approach because they try to harmonize everything.

39:38

Speaker A

So, they don't see differences. They harmonize it. Now, where do we Christians fit in?

39:47

Speaker A

Okay. Let's look at the similarities here. Now, Loud, he complained that Christians who argue that the Bible can be read objectively are no different from the unbelieving scholars. Well, one, then are you for objective truth or not?

40:05

Speaker A

You know why the atheists came out the way they are? Because no one was arguing against them objectively.

40:12

Speaker A

All right? So, if we're all about objective interpretation, objective truth, then we should go on their playing field and be able to tackle them.

40:20

Speaker A

Now, here's another thing that's like a duh statement okay? If objective historical literal interpretation is what's been practiced at the first century, and it's something that the unbelieving scholars are taking, and if that's something that the Antioch people were

40:41

Speaker A

doing too okay? If the Antioch people were doing the same method here, and the first century was doing the same method, what's the difference with the scholars, with the Antiochian people, and the first century? See that?

41:11

Speaker A

There's a difference here. This is where theologians or theological hermeneutics have a valid point against the historical critics or the unbelieving scholars.

41:24

Speaker A

So, let's continue on. This is not all with interpretation. There's a various interpretation or hermeneutics schools that came out to interpret the word of God.

41:36

Speaker A

There's another branch which is called reception history. Now, reception history is more liberal than the historical critics.

41:48

Speaker A

Yeah, it sounds liberal, right? What is reception history? Well, before reception history, there's a liter- literary reception approach, okay?

42:02

Speaker A

In other words, when you look at the verse, it has no meaning to you.

42:07

Speaker A

So, because the verse doesn't apply to you or it doesn't have meaning to you, then why should we go by a historical critical approach? So, let's go by a literary recept- receptive approach.

42:21

Speaker A

That way, no matter what verse I'm randomly reading, it has some spiritual meaning to me.

42:27

Speaker A

So that Yeah, see that? See, that's a liberal mindset. So, it has some kind of meaning to me spiritually, so the verse can be interpreted however way that I want to.

42:37

Speaker A

See that? Now, the historical critics are obviously poking fun at that, but they have a problem here. You know what their problem is?

42:48

Speaker A

As historical critics or scholars who read the Bible, they keep studying and studying it, they realize that the historical critics' weakness is a cold calculus interpretation. In other words, when they read the verse, it's only applied to that past, that time.

43:07

Speaker A

And because it's applied to that past, it's too far-fetched to say that it had no application or meaning throughout people throughout history.

43:17

Speaker A

That's why reception history was born. In other words, no matter what historical time period you're at, it had some meaning to you.

43:26

Speaker A

The greatest evidence is at this historical time period when they were reading the verse, it's not just historically or literally to them, get this now, De- Villiers, he argued that undoubtedly people at the first century when they read that verse,

43:46

Speaker A

it had some spiritual meaning to them. Now, is that an undoubtable fact? Absolutely. They're not just reading the verse objectively, where historically and literally it has it applies to them. No, it's more than that. It's a spiritual transformation to them.

44:06

Speaker A

Like when we talk about believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, thou shalt be saved, that has a spiritual meaning there. It's spiritually transforming to us.

44:15

Speaker A

We got saved from hell, we're going to heaven, our spiritual nature got born again.

44:21

Speaker A

So, they cannot deny there is a spiritual meaning. Uh, I run out of space, okay?

44:32

Speaker A

Whatever, I'm going to write it anywhere or everywhere that I want to. You want something interesting?

44:50

Speaker A

The theologians who are arguing for theological hermeneutics realize that there is something here. You can't just, you know, interpret however way you want to, allegorically or spiritually.

45:03

Speaker A

They realize that there is a there is some validity with joining the spiritual application with the historical literal application.

45:18

Speaker A

Now, if you remember part one, that should open up Pandora's Box. This is academically speaking.

45:28

Speaker A

But they don't get the enlightenment like you and I do, right? Because we know dispensationalism already, and everything matches up. We learned about spiritual dispensationalism.

45:39

Speaker A

We learned about the spiritual application, the triple application method right? So, this should open up a whole This should open up Pandora's Box.

45:48

Speaker A

The gates should be open, and your mind SHOULD BE GOING, "WHOA, IT'S everything's connecting now." Okay.

45:57

Speaker A

So, the theologians realize that the spiritual application or spiritual interpretation, there is some validity with the historical literal.

46:06

Speaker A

And the unbelieving scholars realize that the historical literal interpretation, there is some mingling with the spiritual application. That's why there have been many forms that have been created by all different hermeneutical schools.

46:27

Speaker A

Whether they were more for theological hermeneutics or they were more for historical criticism, they create they attempted to make synergies or or uh uh what what would be the easier word to use for the people here? The methods that would conjoin the two,

46:45

Speaker A

okay? They tried to make integrative approaches, synergies, or the best way to say it is, how can I conjoin this spiritual interpretation with the historical literal interpretation? So, they were coming up their own interpretation methods that would conjoin the two. All right, does that

47:04

Speaker A

make sense to all of you? Okay, so here are several examples here, okay? So, first of all, uh the historical critic Schneider, she actually created a dialectical interpretation method. In other words, the intention was when you look at the verse,

47:31

Speaker A

you first look at it from a historical perspective, historical literal perspective, or an objective perspective. Then what happens is, what does it mean to you? See that? So, there's that spiritual meaning. So then, how they find the right interpretation

47:47

Speaker A

is after you first have a historical objective interpretation, then you have a dialectical interplay, going back and forth with you on what is spiritually meaningful to you with the historical objective interpretation from the text. So, then it goes back and

48:01

Speaker A

forth, back and forth, back and forth until you find the interpretation. So, that's for from a historical critic, all right? Schneider. The other one is Thomas Tops. He has a method which is very um uh it is very much

48:21

Speaker A

an integrative process that goes inwardly, which is very interesting. So, he calls it Soren Kierk- Frederick Nietzsche's historical illness to properly lived historicality from Soren Kierkegaard. So, I'm not going to, you know, go through all that, but basically the idea is this, the idea

48:41

Speaker A

with this interpretation is that when you look at the text, you have to make sure that your historical past or bias doesn't bind you.

48:55

Speaker A

So then, you make sure that it doesn't bind you. However, you have to recognize that the historical bias exists.

49:03

Speaker A

So, in that verse, he's looking at a all the historical biases from beginning to now.

49:11

Speaker A

Then you conjoin all of that together, and then you have to recognize your own historical bias, and then by doing that, then you have to find a negotiation.

49:22

Speaker A

So then, you try to conjoin all those biases, interpretation, and find the right interpretation out of that. All right now.

49:33

Speaker A

Millard J. Erickson, he has a book, a thick book called Christian theology. He dug up deep and up-to-date theological arguments, philosophical arguments.

49:45

Speaker A

I know a lot of people recommend different theology books, but his is probably the best in my opinion. His book is the best theology book when it comes to standard theological schools.

49:56

Speaker A

Now, obviously, I would recommend Ruckman's, right? Or Alvin Douglas's. But if I'm going to talk about the theology schools, they all use standard textbooks for their theology classes.

50:07

Speaker A

They use Berkhof, Calvinists would use MacArthur's. Um but uh and then there Oh, what's this guy? His Karl Barth, he's very famous, very, very famous. Karl Barth theology books. But the best one, in my opinion, is Millard J. Erickson because his is

50:24

Speaker A

the most thorough and composite and widespread. It covers up-to-date modern theological arguments as well as philosophical.

50:32

Speaker A

Now, Millard J. Erickson, in his introductory chapters, mentions, which is very, very interesting. He mentions that the standard Christian interpretation and guess what? The Christians will have to agree with this, okay? Christians will agree with this.

50:50

Speaker A

You look at the verse literally as it says at their historical time period. And then, if the verse doesn't work that way, the secondary method is to go by church tradition or phil- uh whatever philosophy or theology or dictionaries,

51:12

Speaker A

Hebrew, Greek, or other secondary methods. So, in other words, you can use the allegorical approach as well. So, what did he mention? He mentioned what was primary in King was historical literal interpretation.

51:26

Speaker A

All right. Now, as Bible believers, we prioritize historical literal, correct? Objective interpretation. Whenever there are verses that don't work historically literally, then we go by allegorical or spiritual interpretation. Now, that's a standard thing that Bible believers teach, okay? We all teach that.

51:50

Speaker A

Um let's look at Mark chapter 8. Mark chapter 8. Oh, time's up. Oh my goodness, already?

52:05

Speaker A

I just started, okay. I I can wrap it up though, okay. So, let's go to Mark 8.

52:15

Speaker A

The difference, see this? With the unbelievers and the Antiochian people, the first-century Christians. What's the difference? These guys, this should be a duh statement. Remember, they don't have a Christian viewpoint when they read the verse, right? What makes you a Christian? When you're

52:35

Speaker A

saved. What makes you saved? When you have the holy spirit in you. In other words, a spiritual perspective.

52:45

Speaker A

That's good. That is the key difference with these guys and these guys, the unbelievers. We recognize spiritual meaning, spiritual application.

53:06

Speaker A

So, in other words, get this now. Even though historical literal was king for these guys, they did not ignore the spiritual application.

53:18

Speaker A

Now, what did Dr. Ruckman keep insisting for the application in scripture? Historical, doctrinal, and what?

53:28

Speaker A

Spiritual. I think we underestimate spiritual. So, because we under- estimate spiritual, that's the reason why uh we're not really seeing that double application approach in scripture later on.

53:45

Speaker A

Because we emphasize so much on historical literal, but we don't But the Bible believers need to see that against our enemies here, against our enemies here, you got to be careful. You got to know a little bit more.

54:00

Speaker A

Now you know why we're historical literal, right? Because we're objective. But we're not so much to the point like these unbelieving scholars. Why? We believe there's a spiritual perspective there.

54:13

Speaker A

That's why we don't see contradictions in the Bible. We harmonize it. We systemat- We s- uh systematize it, if there's such a word. So, dispensationalism comes from systematic theology.

54:33

Speaker A

For some of you who didn't know that. That's why we came up with this approach. Dispensationalism is not what you think that it's completely historical literal, okay? It is historical literal approach, but systematic theology was born because it's trying to spiritualize verses, see

54:53

Speaker A

that? To harmonize them. That's what a lot of people don't know about in their history.

55:01

Speaker A

So, it's a historical literal approach that makes sure to put the spiritual as secondary to harmonize verses.

55:12

Speaker A

Okay? Let me repeat that again. The spiritual meaning harmonizes verses. But that's the fault of theologians, the Alexandrian scholars, the church fathers. Because they keep wanting to justify the Bible, harmonize the verses, they abused it, and there's no

55:36

Speaker A

boundaries there. See that? So, what's the method? Just like Millard J. Erickson argued in his Christian theology book. You take the verse his literally as it says, objectively as truth to that historical time period, but when the verse does not

55:54

Speaker A

work that way, then you go by what? The secondary sources. That includes spiritual application.

56:01

Speaker A

See that? What do we do in dispensationalism? We take it historically to their time period, literally as it says. So, in James chapter 2, when it says Abraham was not uh justified by faith alone, but with works.

56:17

Speaker A

And then Romans chapter 4 says Abraham was not justified by works, but with faith alone. How do we do that? We divide it easily by the historical time period. In Romans 4, Abraham, when he looked at the stars, and then believed

56:30

Speaker A

that his seed would be that innumerable, that was faith without works. But later on, I think like 50 years later or 20 years later, almost 20 years later, at that time period, he offered up Isaac, his son, as a sacrifice. That was his

56:45

Speaker A

work that complemented his faith. See, so there's no contradiction there. So, James is talking about at a later time period what Abraham went through. Paul was concentrated at a at an earlier time period. See that? Now, there's spiritual meaning there. The

57:03

Speaker A

spiritual meaning harmonizes those verses. And the spiritual meaning is that Paul recognized that there is no contradiction, and James recognized there is no contradiction. So, because of that, our spiritual Christian perspective, believing the word of God has no

57:21

Speaker A

contradictions, we harmonize those two. But you notice that the historical literal approach easily divided the time periods literally. But then let's say we come across a verse where we cannot do it historically literally. Does spiritual application work? Yes, in

57:39

Speaker A

dispensationalism. So, for example, like I gave you in the last lesson there, right? We see in Revelation chapter 2 that there is doctrine there that applies to the Christian church.

57:54

Speaker A

But then, you see doctrine there that applies to tribulation Jew. Then how does that work? Because of that spiritual application. Spiritual application can jump the time periods.

58:08

Speaker A

It can still harmonize those verses. In other words, God is historically speaking to those local churches, but on the spiritual plane, he can see that applying to tribulation Jews. See, it's that simple. But I will expound on that

58:24

Speaker A

more in our next teaching. The first teaching though should have been more sufficient, okay? In explaining that, all right? But the next teaching, I'll explain that a little bit more.

58:34

Speaker A

So, uh the point is, however, notice that we enforce, see that? It's a must.

58:39

Speaker A

It's an enforcement. We have to put spiritual application there to harmonize the verses. There's no doubt about it. You can't do everything historically literally. Why?

58:51

Speaker A

Because even Jesus' teaching had a spiritual meaning. It's not all historical literal. Look at Mark 8. Mark 8.

59:00

Speaker A

Mark chapter 8, verse 14. Verse 14. Now, the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf. And he charged them saying, "Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the

59:14

Speaker A

leaven of Herod." And they reasoned among themselves saying, "It is because we have no bread." See that?

59:21

Speaker A

Disciples were taking it literally as literal bread at their historical time period. They were giving out bread.

59:30

Speaker A

Verse 17. And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, "Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? Perceive ye not yet, neither understand? Have ye your heart yet hardened?" Okay, so Jesus is rebuking them for having that historical literal

59:45

Speaker A

perspective. Cuz they ignored a different application they should have done. Verse 21, and he said unto them, "How is it that ye do not understand?" So, what's the answer here? Well, when you go back, uh you can go to Luke 12, Luke chapter

60:04

Speaker A

12. So, Jesus is rebuking them. He's saying, "How do you not understand?" This is what I mean here.

60:15

Speaker A

Okay, look at the book of Luke chapter 12. And then uh verse uh let's see right here.

60:23

Speaker A

Oh, it wasn't Luke 12. Sorry, I thought it was Luke 12. Okay. Oh, I had the verse written down. I guess I'm wrong. Sorry for that.

60:34

Speaker A

Um can anyone find the passage that is a similar scenario that goes with this? No, it is Luke 12.

60:43

Speaker A

It's one. Let me look at it again. It's Luke chapter 12:1. Let me read.

60:52

Speaker A

Okay. Yep, that's right. Okay, uh well, no, that's not It's not the same story though. Okay.

61:03

Speaker A

But anyway, he interprets it here, okay? He interprets it. Verse 1, In the meantime, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first

61:15

Speaker A

of all, "Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees." But he explained what it is, which is what?

61:20

Speaker A

Hypocrisy. So, when he talked about the leaven of the Pharisees here, he's talking about spiritually. See that?

61:29

Speaker A

Spiritually, what leaven represents is hypocrisy. Now, the other one I need to find that verse. Is it Matthew 15?

61:39

Speaker A

Look at that, Matthew 15. Uh 16:12. 16. Yes, yes, 16. Thank you. Okay. Matthew 16:11.

61:53

Speaker A

Same story, same scenario. How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?

62:05

Speaker A

Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. See that? So, wrong doctrine is spiritually represented as leaven. So, when the word

62:22

Speaker A

of God is speaking here, you got to see if there's a spiritual application. You better do that. If you don't do that, then you're going to come across wrong things. Now, here's the thing here.

62:34

Speaker A

If spiritual meaning is valid academically, then if I were to look at the tribulation Jewish epistles, Hebrews through Jude, yes, historically literally, perhaps, you can say that was for Jews in the tribulation. That's what the apostles were prepping for. But when

62:53

Speaker A

I read that as a Christian, can I find doctrine there that applies to me?

62:59

Speaker A

Yes, I can find doctrine there that can apply to me concerning about repentance, the blood of Jesus Christ, even eternal security there.

63:09

Speaker A

Why? Now, that becomes spiritual meaningful to me. See that that double doctrine application approach is not just historical literal, it's spiritual.

63:23

Speaker A

So, I don't know if a lot of people would be able to discover that. But this is from an academic perspective, too.

63:29

Speaker A

They recognize that when these verses are written out, it can't just go back to cold calculus interpretations of a historical past. It had spiritual meaning for the people. Now, here's a more eye-opening thing.

63:44

Speaker A

When God gave the Bible, all right, he intended that every time period here that those verses would have spiritual meaning to them.

63:57

Speaker A

See that? So, we can't just deemphasize the spiritual meaning, the spiritual application approach. It has a lot of validity here for finding the right interpretation for us.

64:13

Speaker A

That's very important to understand. You have to use some common sense, too. Do you think um that tribulation Jews, when uh they go through the tribulation, they're only going to read Hebrews through Revelation?

64:30

Speaker A

Of course not. They're going to get meaning from all the other books of the Bible, as well.

64:36

Speaker A

Now, the mid-Acts hyperdispensationalists are more embarrassing, okay? They think only your 13 uh no, the the 12 books of Paul are all your Christian doctrine. Then what do you do with all the other books?

64:50

Speaker A

See that? That ain't the Bible then, all right? That's That's a little booklet, not the Bible.

64:56

Speaker A

God intended it for us today to have all 66 books for a reason. It's so that we can find meaning into them, all of them. But here's the important thing, we don't have historical literal application to all verses.

65:13

Speaker A

That's why dispensationalism is important, where we have to see that some of these verses do not doctrinally apply to us.

65:21

Speaker A

However, we can't just dismiss that then of the other verses. Then we won't find spiritual meaning.

65:28

Speaker A

So, there is validity here academically. All right, now theologically will be eye-opening, all right? When I come to the theological part, it's going to be indisputable that dispensationalism is the right theology.

65:42

Speaker A

It's the right perspective. And this spiritual historical literal doctrinal approaches, they all work together with this method, okay?

65:50

Speaker A

All right, don't miss next time, okay? Heavenly Father, I pray that tonight's teaching has been a blessing to our hearers. Open their eyes more to the truth of your scripture.

66:00

Speaker A

And now we've discovered academically this is the right path that we're taking. And that this is a valid interpretation here, that historical literal is the utmost prioritized method. And then underneath that is the spiritual. I pray that this will be eye-opening to

66:20

Speaker A

everybody out there. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

Topics: spiritual dispensationalism biblical interpretation King James Bible Antioch hermeneutics Bart Ehrman allegorical interpretation historical-literal theological hermeneutics Christian doctrine


---
This is the markdown twin of https://sozai.app/transcript/video-phd-scholars-dont-want-christians-see/ — the same content, without the markup.
Published by SozAI (https://sozai.app). Reuse and quotation are allowed with attribution and a link back.
Machine-readable index: https://sozai.app/llms.txt · data API: https://sozai.app/api/