David Reagan - Rhodes Responds to Newsweek
The Bible says that in the end times, Christians will suffer increasing persecution for their faith. That is occurring here today in the United States in many ways, and one of the most blatant is in the form of magazine articles that distort the Bible and treat Christians with contempt. Perhaps the worst violator has been Newsweek magazine. Stay tuned as our special guest, Dr. Ron Rhodes, responds to the latest Newsweek attack.
David Reagan: Greetings in the name of Jesus, our Blessed Hope, and welcome to Christ in Prophecy. Once again this week, our special guest is Dr. Ron Rhodes, the founder and director of a ministry in Frisco, Texas called Reasoning from the Scriptures. Dr. Rhodes is the author of more than 70 books, most of which are in the field of apologetics, or the defense of the faith. I am also glad to have with me our ministry’s Web Minister and the co-host of this program ,Nathan Jones. Welcome Nathan.
Nathan Jones: Well thank you, Dr. Reagan.
David Reagan: Glad you to have you on the set always.
Nathan Jones: Praise the Lord.
David Reagan: Well, Nathan and I would like to get your response to some of the outlandish statements that were made by this Newsweek author in this story that was very long and on the cover of Newsweek magazine attacking the Bible and also Christianity. Nathan, why don’t you kick it off with one of the statements they made.
Nathan Jones: Sure, let’s go with one of the first statements here it says, “No television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the Pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation, a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on.” So, you’ve never read the Bible?
Dr. Rhodes: You know what the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear those words is Dan Brown novels.
Nathan Jones: Yeah.
Dr. Rhodes: I’m not kidding. You know The Da Vinci Code is a book that had these same kind of arguments.
David Reagan: I think he got his arguments out of there.
Dr. Rhodes: I think he did. The only problem is I think that the Newsweek article is worse fiction then the Dan Brown book.
Nathan Jones: Yeah.
Dr. Rhodes: You know the thing is this article makes it sound like there was a translation, of a translation, of a translation, of a translation and so on and so forth. Almost as if it started in Hebrew and got translated into Aramaic, then into Greek, then into Latin then into you know whatever other language that transpired. That is completely false. What happened was is that the New Testament was translated from Greek manuscripts. The Old Testament was translated from Hebrew manuscripts. Now here is something really cool to think about, we’ve got over 25,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. 25,000 and many of them date very, very early. For example we have Vaticanus and Sinaitucis which both date to the Fourth Century. We’ve got the Chester Beatty papyri which goes back to the Second and Third Century. We’ve even got one manuscript that goes back to 120 AD which is one generation separated from the four Gospels. Now what that means is accuracy.
David Reagan: Yes, and there is more manuscript evidence then there is for any ancient writings.
Dr. Rhodes: Well that’s right. Consider Plato, Plato predated Christ by a couple of hundred years. The earliest manuscript we have from him is 1,300 years later and our total number of manuscripts is seven.
Nathan Jones: Well that is like Homer who wrote The Iliad and The Odyssey don’t the copies we have are like 700 years or so after.
Dr. Rhodes: Yeah.
Nathan Jones: We don’t even know if Homer really wrote it then.
Dr. Rhodes: And with the New Testament we’ve got 25,000 that go back very, very far. Very close to New Testament times. And here is something else to think about guys even if by some freak accident we lost all 25,000 of those manuscripts. Did you know that we could reproduce the entire New Testament except for 11 verses in the writings of the Church Fathers?
David Reagan: They quoted it.
Dr. Rhodes: Because there are 36,000 quotations of the Church Fathers of the New Testament.
Nathan Jones: Wow.
Dr. Rhodes: So, all but 11 verses we could reconstruct accurately if we lost all those 25,000 manuscripts. Now the good news is we haven’t lost those manuscripts.
Nathan Jones: Praise the Lord.
Dr. Rhodes: We’ve got the 25,000 manuscripts plus the writings of the Church Fathers. Let me tell you this article doesn’t know anything. It doesn’t know its end from its beginning because you can trust your Bible based upon the real evidence.
Nathan Jones: Welcome back to Christ in Prophecy. Dr. Reagan and I are in the process of interviewing Dr. Ron Rhodes, asking him to respond to attacks on the Bible and Christianity that were recently published in Newsweek magazine.
David Reagan: Ron, let’s proceed to a very specific attack that Newsweek made on the Bible. It reads like this: “In the past 100 years or so, tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament have been discovered, dating back centuries. And what “biblical scholars” now know is that later versions differ significantly from the earlier ones. In fact, even copies from the same time periods differ from one another.”
Dr. Rhodes: Well that is a common claim of liberal critics, and I emphasize that word liberal. You know the fact is that in talking about the New Testament manuscripts I like to go back just a little bit further and begin with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
David Reagan: Ok.
Dr. Rhodes: Because that way we can understand the accuracy.
David Reagan: Why are those so important?
Dr. Rhodes: Well you know those scrolls were discovered back in 1947. And one of the really cool things about that is we came up with two different Isaiah manuscripts that were dated at 125 BC. Now what is cool about that is that the previous earliest manuscript that we had of Isaiah was 895 AD.
Nathan Jones: Wow.
Dr. Rhodes: That means they are separated by a 1,000 years. Now when you compare the two sets of manuscripts one of the things that you discover real quickly is that they are identical in 95% of the case. And the 5% variation is mainly misspellings; not a single doctrine is affected. That means accuracy that is a 1,000 year span and yet you’ve got that kind of incredible accuracy. Now that brings me to the New Testament now there are differences in individual New Testament manuscripts and they are call variance. But you see the thing is even the critical scholars, people like Bart Ehrman who is attacking the New Testament, even they will admit that 99.9% of these have no consequence at all. That mainly it is misspellings or occasionally a word might get reversed, it might say Christ Jesus instead of Jesus Christ as an example. But in no way does it ever effect a single doctrine. Now I want to illustrate to you the accuracy of understanding what the original documents of the Bible actually said. And I want to do an exercise with you if I could. There is going to be an original document that we no longer have. I’ve got five copies of it and I am going to read the five copies to you and you tell me what you think the original said. The first manuscript says “believe in Jesus Christ for salvation.” The second manuscripts says, “Believe in Jesus Christ for salvation.” It’s identical. The third manuscript says, “Believe in Jesus for salvation.” The fourth manuscript says, “Believe in Jesus Christ to be saved.” The fifth manuscript says, “Believe in Jesus Christ salvation.”
David Reagan: They all mean the same thing.
Dr. Rhodes: They all mean the same thing. Could you come up with the original? Of course you could determine the original. That is 95% of the case in the New Testament manuscripts, it’s just like that. In fact there are only 40 places in the New Testament where scholars have looked at it and have been more concerned about the exact reading. And not one of those effects any meaning in the New Testament. Now I want to tell you something real important here. You know when Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Old Testament they didn’t quote from actual books written by Moses, or Daniel, or Ezekiel, or Jeremiah, or any of those other guys. All that Jesus and the Apostle had were manuscript copies of those books. But guess what, when they quoted from those books they quoted from them as Scripture. They considered those manuscripts as so approximate to the original that they had virtually no hesitation in accepting those manuscript copies as the Word of God.
David Reagan: And I think the reason for the accuracy of course God was superintending this by protecting His Word.
Dr. Rhodes: Sure He was.
David Reagan: But if you know anything about how the scribes did this. I mean they considered this to be the Word of God. They treated it as the Word of God. And when they wrote this they had a way of counting the letters across, and the letters down to make absolutely certain it was correct.
Dr. Rhodes: That is exactly right.
David Reagan: They had proof texting beyond proof texting.
Dr. Rhodes: It was a very tedious process and of course that shows itself in the Dead Sea Scrolls when we compare those copies of the book of Isaiah that we talked about.
David Reagan: Ok, let’s go for another one here, Nathan.
Nathan Jones: Ok, well, obviously a God who can create a universe can keep a book going for a while.
Dr. Rhodes: I would think so. I would agree.
Nathan Jones: Well the next statement I want to read from the Newsweek here attacks the concept of the Trinity. And it goes, “The Trinity, the belief that Jesus and God are the same and, with the Holy Spirit, are a single entity is a fundamental, yet deeply confusing tenet. So where does the clear declaration of God and Jesus as part of a triumvirate appear in the Greek manuscripts?” And they declare, “Nowhere!”
Dr. Rhodes: You know this kind of sounds like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Nathan Jones: Yeah.
Dr. Rhodes: They have the same kind of arguments. So, far we’ve seen he’s got stuff from Dan Brown, now we are seeing that he is getting stuff from the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Nathan Jones: Anything but the Bible.
Dr. Rhodes: Anything from the Bible. Anybody who has studied the Bible can answer this. I think my kids who just went to Christian schools they could answer that very easily. Let me just answer it this way. First of all the reality that he can’t understand the Trinity doesn’t mean anything to me.
Nathan Jones: Exactly.
Dr. Rhodes: Do you really expect a finite being to be able to understand the infinite God?
David Reagan: If we could He wouldn’t be God.
Dr. Rhodes: That is exactly right. And you know in terms of the actual biblical evidence for this let me just quickly give you five planks. The first plank is that there is one God. And that is something that we see from Genesis to Revelation, it is a thread that goes all the way from Genesis to Revelation, there is one God. Secondly, the Father is called God all throughout the Bible, nobody disputes that. Third, Jesus is called God on many, many occasions. He is called God in John 1:1. He is called the Great I Am of Exodus 3:14, and John 8:58. He and the Father have the same divine nature in John 10:30. The fullness of deity dwells in Jesus Christ, Colossians 2:9.
David Reagan: Thomas confessed He was God.
Dr. Rhodes: Thomas says, John 20:28, “My Lord, and My God.” That is exactly right. “I am the First and the Last,” Jesus says, Revelation 1:8. My point being that Jesus is God, just like the Father is. He has the same title as the Father. The Holy Spirit is God that is number four. The Holy Spirit is called God. After all He is called the Spirit of God all throughout the Bible. He has all the attributes of God. And in Acts chapter 5, lying to the Holy Spirit is equated to lying with God. So what have seen so far? There is one God. The Father is God. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. And the fifth plank is that there are three in oneness within the deity. This is going into the Greek so here we go ok, Matthew 28:19 Jesus says, “Baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” In the original Greek the word name is singular, indicating one God. But also in the Greek there is a definite article in front of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. Now guys let’s be honest in English definite articles don’t matter that much. But in the original Greek definite articles mean everything.
David Reagan: Absolutely. That’s right.
Dr. Rhodes: And those definite articles distinguish the three persons in the one name of God.
David Reagan: Well here is an interesting affirmation that’s made in the Newsweek article and its one I’ve never heard before. It says, “It is the universal opinion, the universal opinion–
Dr. Rhodes: Everyone believes it.
David Reagan: –of biblical scholars that both 1 Timothy and 2 Peter are forgeries.”
Dr. Rhodes: What doctors was he? What professors?
Nathan Jones: Yeah, of the five guys that he asked on the street.
David Reagan: Did he call you?
Dr. Rhodes: I think it was Jekyll and Hyde if I recall. Well that is just nonsense. And you know these guys offer some arguments that they think are just killer arguments for saying that Paul didn’t write 1 Timothy. You know what the arguments are?
David Reagan: No, I don’t.
Dr. Rhodes: First of all the style of writing is a little different in 1 Timothy so Paul couldn’t have written it. Not only that Paul likes to talk about big theological themes in his books and 1 Timothy doesn’t have any big theological themes, and so therefore Paul could not have written it.
David Reagan: That’s it?
Dr. Rhodes: Well, they will also go on to say that they think that it was written in the Second Century and if 1 Timothy was written in the Second Century Paul couldn’t have written it because he died in the First Century. And they say that because the error that Paul was dealing with in 1 Timothy they say was Second Century Gnosticism.
David Reagan: Oh.
Dr. Rhodes: You know this is the kind of stuff they offer. Now let’s just evaluate that real quick. First of all let’s look at the style. In Romans Paul was writing theology about justification and sanctification to the Church at Rome.
Nathan Jones: Real heavy stuff.
Dr. Rhodes: When he was writing to Timothy his young intimate friend who started up a church He’s writing like to one of his little pals.
David Reagan: That’s right.
Dr. Rhodes: One of his close intimate friends. Obviously the style is going to be a little bit different. And really there is no theological themes in 1 Timothy that’s what you’re bringing to the table Newsweek. Really? The fact is that what you find in 1 Timothy is a discussion of the atonement of Jesus Christ. Is there any bigger theological theme then the atonement of Christ?
Nathan Jones: The biggest.
Dr. Rhodes: And he also talks about Christ being the mediator. And by the way 1 Timothy is not dealing with Second Century Gnosticism, its dealing with First Century Jewish legalism. So these guys got it wrong from beginning to end.
David Reagan: What about 2 Peter?
Dr. Rhodes: Well 2 Peter this is another one of those comical things where they just not reading the text very carefully. The reason they say that 2 Peter is not given the evidence of being written by Peter is because the style is completely different from 1 Peter. If you look at it it’s got different words and different style than 2 Peter, they are just different. Have they even read 1 Peter? If you read 1 Peter and you come to chapter 5 verse 12 what does Peter say there? Peter says, “This letter has actually been written down for me by my scribe Silvanus.” He was a stylist. He was an expert in Greek linguistics that wrote this down for Peter. And then Peter checked it over to make sure it was exactly right and then it went out to the churches. Now in 2 Peter, Peter didn’t use a stylist he wrote it by himself and he is a little more sloppy than the guy who wrote it first.
Nathan Jones: A fisherman right?
Dr. Rhodes: But both of them came from Peter. But my point to you is that these arguments are ridiculous when they try to argue. But you see the sad thing is that most Christians are too illiterate to even know this stuff. So there are a lot of Christians who will believe the lies that are set forth in this article.
David Reagan: Welcome back to Christ in Prophecy. Nathan Jones and I are interviewing Dr. Ron Rhodes, getting his responses to some vicious attacks on the Bible that were recently printed in a cover story in Newsweek magazine.
Nathan Jones: I am going to ask you a very hot topic, we get a lot of viciousness from.
Dr. Rhodes: Uh, oh. Well I am in my red chair waiting for it.
Nathan Jones: You are in the red chair. Alright you are ready for the hot seat.
Dr. Rhodes: It’s good and hot.
Nathan Jones: Ok, well let’s read, “The condemnation of homosexuality in 1 Timothy is a modern invention, since the word, homosexual, did not exist until 1,800 years after 1 Timothy was written.”
Dr. Rhodes: You know it hard to know where to begin in answering something like that. It is true that in the history of the English language that the word homosexual was a fairly recent development. It’s a compound word meaning same-sex.
Nathan Jones: There is a sign of the times right there, recent development.
Dr. Rhodes: Well it is. But the thing of it is, is that has been presented as a smokescreen argument to do away with the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality. I’m sorry that won’t work. That won’t work. And 1 Timothy the Greek word that is used there if you look in the most accurate Greek Lexicons I am talking about Lexicons like Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, standards. Is that the word means men who engage in sexual relations with other men. That’s what the word means. Now whether or not you want to say the whole phrase or use the word homosexual the meaning of 1 Timothy 1:10 is the same and that is that God is condemning homosexuality. And I might mention to you that what Paul says there in 1 Timothy 1:10 is in perfect keeping with what he says elsewhere. For example in Romans 1 where he talks about unnatural affections between men and men, and unnatural affections between women, and women. And Paul makes the same point in 1 Corinthians 6 where he says that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Now to be fair a number of different kinds of sinners are mentioned in that context so we are not ganging up on homosexuals.
David Reagan: That’s right.
Nathan Jones: No.
Dr. Rhodes: But that is one of a number of sins that could keep you out of the Kingdom of God. And the interesting thing there is that Paul says to the Corinthians right there in 1 Corinthians 6 some of you used to be homosexuals but you’ve been delivered by the power of the Lord Jesus and you’ve been sanctified.
David Reagan: That’s right.
Dr. Rhodes: You see. And so I have to say even though I am certainly wishing for all homosexuals to be delivered from their lifestyle. And I’m not trying to come across as mean spirited or unfair, or narrow minded or any of those things. We must be clear on what the Bible actually teaches on this because eternal souls are at stake. We need the truth. And what we need today is for Christians to be bold enough to tell the truth in the name of Jesus. And this is what Scripture teaches on homosexuality. And if I might add the Scripture also speaks strongly against same-sex marriage.
Nathan Jones: Certainly. Matthew 6:19 I think particular when people say that Jesus never talked about homosexuality. It says, “Haven’t you read, He relied, that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female.”
Dr. Rhodes: Right.
Nathan Jones: “And it also said for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two will become one flesh.” So Jesus Himself by defining what marriage is was saying that homosexuality, adultery, fornication all these things are not the definition of marriage.
Dr. Rhodes: Well that’s right. And of course Jesus is pointing back to Genesis chapter 2 where marriage is invented. God is the one who invented it. And as the Inventor of marriage He is the one who determined the genders that participate in it; it’s a male and a female. And of course you see that throughout the rest of the Bible. 1 Corinthians 7 for example where Paul is giving instructions of husbands and wives meeting each other’s needs he says, “The man must meet the needs of the woman, and the woman must meet the needs of the man.” You know it is a very clear gender distinction between the two. And I could go a lot more on this. But what is very clear from Scripture is that homosexuality is a sin. And by virtue of that fact same-sex marriages are a sin as well.
David Reagan: And so is adultery. And so is fornication.
Dr. Rhodes: That exactly right.
David Reagan: The Bible makes it very clear the only moral sex is that between a husband and a wife.
Dr. Rhodes: Right, exactly.
David Reagan: Just as clear as it can be.
Dr. Rhodes: That’s right and you know I think that too often one of the problems that we do see in the Church to be fair is that there will be many individuals speaking out against homosexuality when they haven’t dealt with their own problems.
David Reagan: Well you know I saw an interview on Fox News not long ago where Robert Jeffress the pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas was confronting a homosexual advocate. And the homosexual turned to him and said, “You know the way you’re talking you make it sound like a heterosexual relationship is superior to a homosexual relationship.” He said, “That’s exactly right.” He said, “Well I don’t think that. Prove it.” He said, “Oh, I can prove it very simply you wouldn’t exist if you’re parents weren’t married.”
Dr. Rhodes: Right. Good point.
David Reagan: I mean it’s just a simple as it can be.
Dr. Rhodes: That’s a good point.
David Reagan: Ok, I wanted to bring up another point that is made in this. From the beginning of this article to the end of this article there is a constant, unrelenting attack on what is called inerrancy. Let me just give you one quote, “Nowhere in the Gospels, or Acts, or Epistles, or Apocalypses does the New Testament say it is the inerrant Word of God. It couldn’t the people who authored each section had no idea they were composing the Christian Bible and they were long dead before what they wrote was voted by members of political and theological committees to be the New Testament.”
Dr. Rhodes: Well again where do begin in answering all of that? First of all let’s recognize that it wasn’t committees who determined the Word of God, they recognized that the Bible was the Word of God. Even in New Testament times the New Testament books were already being recognized as the Word of God. In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter acknowledges that everything Paul wrote was the Word of God using the same word for Scripture as is used of the Old Testament Scriptures; and in the Jewish context at that. And we also find out that in 1 Timothy 5:18 we find a reference to Luke’s Gospel as well as the book of Deuteronomy and they are both collectively called Scripture.
David Reagan: Even in his lifetime people recognized Paul was writing Scripture.
Dr. Rhodes: That’s right. That’s why Paul had his works read in a number of churches because they were Scripture. Now the doctrine of inerrancy grows out of the doctrine of inspiration.
David Reagan: What does that mean the word inerrancy?
Dr. Rhodes: It means without error. There are no mistakes. There is no error in the original documents penned by the original writers of Scripture. Now we need to be careful about this Dave because some evangelicals have tried to redefine inerrancy. They have tried to redefine it to mean that the Bible is inerrant in the sense that there are no intentional deceits. Now, wait a minute based on that definition everything that you’ve ever written is inerrant. And everything I have written in inerrant.
David Reagan: Oh, come on.
Dr. Rhodes: That’s not what the Bible means.
David Reagan: If it’s the Word of God it has to be inerrant.
Dr. Rhodes: That’s right.
David Reagan: How could God make an error?
Dr. Rhodes: That’s exactly right and that really gets back to the doctrine of inspiration because the word inspired doesn’t mean inspiring to read like Shakespeare. It means that the Scriptures are breathed out by God. God is the source of the Scriptures. Now the great verse to go to is 2 Peter 1:21 which says that the biblical writers were brought along the Holy Spirit, or driven along it is a very strong word in the original Greek. And the only other place where that word occurs is in Acts 27 where Paul is on that big ship and he is there with a bunch of other men and this big storm comes up. And the wind is just really picking up and these sailors are trying to control where the ship is going but they couldn’t do it because the wind was driving them along. That is the same word used of the Holy Spirit driving the Biblical authors to write what they wrote. So, yes, humans were involved but the Holy Spirit drove them along. Now here is what I’m building up to, God does not error. The Scriptures come from God. Therefore the Scriptures do not error. And all throughout the Scriptures we do see indications for inerrancy, you know Scripture cannot be broke for example Jesus says. What did Jesus continually tell the Pharisees and the Sadducees about their tradition? He said you guys are constantly going back to your tradition and ignoring the Word of God. But it is the Word of God that is authoritative.
David Reagan: It’s the Word of God.
Dr. Rhodes: Where did Jesus with His confrontation with the Devil? How did He defeat the Devil?
Nathan Jones: Scripture.
Dr. Rhodes: It was Scripture, Matthew 4:1-11. On and on we could go but you see what we see in the New Testament is that the Scriptures speak with the voice of God with the authority of God. And the Scriptures have the authority of God because they came from God, you see. And so these guys that talk about contradictions and so forth haven’t really studied the issue. Now I want to tell you something the Bible may have apparent contradictions especially in the four Gospels, they may have apparent contradictions but not genuine contradictions. It is truer to say that the Gospel have differences. But listen to me on this. If all four Gospels were identical what would the critics say?
Nathan Jones: One guy wrote them all.
Dr. Rhodes: They are copying from each other.
David Reagan: Same way if you’ve got five witnesses saying exactly the same thing in the courtroom.
Dr. Rhodes: That’s right they are going to say collusion.
David Reagan: They know it’s been rehearsed.
Dr. Rhodes: Collusion. Collusion. I’m glad that we’ve got four Gospels that have different details.
David Reagan: Sure.
Dr. Rhodes: But they don’t contradict. You know I used to have a friend who was a policeman and he would write up reports at the corner where there was an accident. Everybody had a different report and there were different things that were shared. But by taking all those things together he could develop a composite report. In the same way we look at the different details provided in the four Gospels and then we understand that we can build a composite account of what took place in the life of Jesus. But it is real important to understand that a partial account does not mean a faulty account. It’s real important to understand that faulty human interpretations are not to be equated with God’s infallible revelation. Human interpretations can conflict, but God’s revelation does not conflict.
David Reagan: If someone were to ask you what you consider to be the greatest evidence that the Bible really is the Word of God what would you say?
Dr. Rhodes: Biblical prophecy without a hesitation.
Nathan Jones: Amen, I would agree.
David Reagan: Amen Brother.
Dr. Rhodes: This has such a powerful impact on me when I was a youngster, I was teenager and at the time I was involved in show business of all things, working in Hollywood. And I was backstage working with Shirley Boone one day, this is Pat Boone’s wife and they were talking about prophecy. I never heard of this stuff before. I never heard about the Second Coming or the Rapture, or the Tribulation. Long story short biblical prophecy proved to me that the Bible really is the Word of God because only God knows the beginning from the end.
David Reagan: And what other book in the world contains fulfilled prophecy?
Dr. Rhodes: That’s right.
David Reagan: I mean hundreds of prophecies fulfilled.
Dr. Rhodes: When you look at the Old Testament prophecies of the coming, see that is what got my attention when I saw that all those prophecies had been fulfilled literally to the crossing of the “T” and the dotting of the “I” in the New Testament I mean nobody can do that.
David Reagan: And we’re not just talking about Messianic prophecies. There are prophecies about individuals, cities, towns, nations, empires.
Dr. Rhodes: Absolutely, absolutely, sure. And so what I did was I said since this is from God you know I am going to turn my life over to the Lord. I’m dumping Hollywood and I’m going to seminary.
David Reagan: I don’t know for some reason I just have this difficulty imagining in you in Hollywood.
Nathan Jones: Holding a guitar no less.
Dr. Rhodes: Imagine 30 years ago, you know, imagine me as a teenagers, you know. The fact is that God did a radical work in my life. You know it is really good news because if God can change me, God can change anybody.
David Reagan: Welcome back to Christ in Prophecy. As we bring our program this week to an end, I want to give our guest, Dr. Ron Rhodes, an opportunity to tell you how you can get in touch with him and his ministry. Ron?
Dr. Rhodes: Well you can just contact us at our website which is ronrhodes.org, R-O-N-R-H-O-D-E-S.org. We’ve have lots of free stuff so stop by and visit.
David Reagan: Ron we have really appreciated you being on our program. You have been a great blessing as always. And folks if you want to get in touch with him go to that website. Last week we interviewed Dr. Rhodes about the newest book that he’s written called, The 8 Great Debates of Bible Prophecy. And if you missed that interview you can find it on our website at lamblion.com. And in a moment our announcer will tell you how you can get a copy of the book.
Nathan Jones: Well, folks, that’s our program for this week. We hope it has been a blessing to you. And we hope you will be back with us again next week. Until then, this is Nathan Jones, speaking for Dr. Reagan and myself, saying, “Look up, be watchful, for our Redemption is drawing near.”