Ep. 239: Can We Trust the Bible? (Part 2)

Welcome to the indoubt podcast, where we explore the challenging topics that young adults often face. Each week, we talk with guests who help answer questions of faith, life, and culture, connecting them to our daily experiences and God’s word. For more info on indoubt visit indoubt.ca or indoubt.com

Erika:

Hey, it’s Erika, and thanks for joining us for another episode of indoubt. In today’s episode, we’ve got Daniel here to discuss an age-old question with apologist, writer, and researcher, Wesley Huff. So what’s this age-old question we’ll be talking about today? Can we trust the Bible? Can we read a book that is thousands of years old and trust it to give us guidance advice in an accurate history of ancient times? The short answer is yes, but how do we know that? If you’re a lifelong Christian, a skeptic or somewhere in between this conversation on the trustworthiness of the Bible is one that you won’t want to miss.

Daniel Markin:

Hey, welcome back to indoubt, my name is Daniel Markin and I’m joined again by my friend, Wesley Huff. How are you doing Wesley?

Wesley Huff:

Doing great.

Daniel Markin:

Great, good to have you back on the program. Listen, last time you were here, we talked a lot about the ancient historical documents of the Bible. You do work with Power to Change, you’re also doing your PhD on this very topic. So if you could just explain a little bit to our audience, a little bit of what your research looks like, and then also some of the ministries that you have been doing.

Wesley Huff:

Yeah. I study the early transmission of the New Testament texts. Really, what we talking about last time in terms of how, do we go from what the original authors wrote thousands of years ago, to what we have now that we translate into languages like English. I particularly study those early communities that produced these documents in particular and spread them throughout the ancient world. And actually compare and contrast them to other ancient writing communities. Like that within the Greco Roman world, but also some of these other communities like the Gnostics or the Docetists, other groups that we would consider heretical Christian groups that claimed name of Jesus. But wrote other gospels, the gospel of Thomas, gospel of Mary Magdalene. I compare some of the writing communities that we see in those demographics with the ones within Christianity, but ultimately what I’m doing is I’m studying the history of the Bible going from its original authorship throughout history, to the thousands of copies that we’re dealing with.

Daniel Markin:

So as you’ve written and spoken and presented, and researched on this topic, what has been one of the most surprising things that you’ve discovered or experienced? And what has been one of most frustrating things that you have experienced or discovered?

Wesley Huff:

You know what, there are so many amazing things that start to pop up, when we look at the history of early Christianity. Particularly how within a very quick time-frame, Christianity started to be criminalized. It started to become illegal, to be a Christian. And yet that not only didn’t dissuade early Christians with producing written texts, but it increased their fervor to do this. And so even though we have records of hundreds of copies of scriptural texts being destroyed, we see an increased energy within the early Christian communities to copy these, to get them out into the hands of as many people as possible. And that ultimately impacting and completely overturning the ancient Roman world and culture and demographics and how they viewed their own culture and the cultures around them. It’s fascinating to see that, you see these Christian communities doing things and impacted by the Christian worldview of Christ dying for Jew and Gentile alike, and how that just spurred early Christians on, to not only produce these texts and get them into the hands of others so that they could read them. But, really show that out with protecting the weak, the vulnerable. In fact, one of the critiques early on within historical Christianity was, this was the religion of slaves and women. Because those were the lowest working societies, and it was mocked for that. And yet, because it gave agency to these groups that were marginalized most, it ended up impacting and completely changing the world from the ground up. In terms of the other question, one of the most frustrating things that I deal with apart from trying to translate dead languages, which no one speaks anymore, is just, I think people who I talked to, my work with Power to Change has me going to university and college campuses across Canada and interacting with students of… All different demographics. And, I do interfaith dialogues, particularly with Muslims, but not limited to that, just I think the amount of misunderstanding that comes around, where are we got the Bible and what the Bible actually is. I hear things like, well all you have is a translation of a translation of a translation, I hear that one a lot. That’s frustrating because, what it does is it confuses, what we talked about last time, the transmission with translation. Someone is thinking, the original words of Jesus were copied down by his followers in Greek, but he was actually speaking Aramaic. So that’s the idea that they have, that it’s a translation even to begin with. And then people aren’t speaking Greek anymore, they’re speaking languages like Latin, so they copy those copies, those manuscripts of the Greek into the Latin, and then there’s no use for the Greek ones anymore. So those are just gotten rid of, and then as time goes on, people aren’t speaking Latin anymore. They’re speaking languages like German, and so they copy all of the Latin manuscripts into German and get rid of the land manuscripts. And this goes on and on and on and on and on, until what you have is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation. And then you got your English version. That’s honestly the description that I get from a lot of people. In fact, I was listening to the Joe Rogan podcast, a very popular podcasts, not all that long ago. And that is exactly how he described the Bible. Well, you know it goes into this language and the next language, and he talked about, even typing something into Google translate, messes up. So you can’t possibly know, this is a popular narrative and it’s a little bit frustrating as someone who studies this stuff to see that what we actually have with the bible is the complete opposite. We’re not going from a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation. We’re going directly from the original languages from the Greek and the Hebrew into the English.

Daniel Markin:

Fascinating. So here’s a question then, and this is something I hear all the time is, they would just say that, hey look, the Bible is a great story and there’s lots of great literature in it. There’s poetry and history and all that. But the reality is, like they said, it’s a translation of translation for one. But number two, they would say. There’s no way of knowing if this thing is true or not. And in fact, it’s more likely that this is just actually all a lie and religion is a lie that is used to try to corral and try to control people. So how do we know that the Bible isn’t a lie?

Wesley Huff:

Yeah, so that’s a really interesting question because it, sort of dovetails off, what we talked about last time, because what we talked about last time is I said, you can have incredible confidence that what we have now is what the original authors wrote. But the next question is, okay, what if they lied? What if they made it up? You could have an incredibly accurately transmitted group of lies and that’s entirely possible. If that is the case, then, even if it’s the most accurately transmitted document in all of antiquity, which it is. If it’s not true, then who cares, you still shouldn’t put your faith in it. The next step is then to ask, okay, well how do we know, that not only what we have is what the original authors wrote, but that it’s true. And I think there are a number of ways we can do that. A number of fascinating ways and actually, If the listeners are truly interested in this. There’s a great little book, two books actually, the first one just came out at the end of 2019 by a scholar from Cambridge called Peter J. Williams. The book is called, Can we Trust the Gospels? It’s not very long. I have it in my hand here. And if I turn to the back, including the index, there’s 150 pages. It’s not a huge book. And it’s a great book that goes into an explanation of this. The other book that I’d highlight is a book by a philosopher named Lydia McGrew. And it’s called Hidden in Plain Sight. Undesigned coincidences in the Gospels and Acts. Now what is an undesigned coincidence? What Lydia McGrew goes into in that book is, these examples of what are referred to as undesigned coincidences, which are instances when you have one or more independent historical accounts, that interlock in such a way that would be unexpected if the story were simply fabricated wholesale. Now what on earth does that mean?

Daniel Markin:

Yeah,

Wesley Huff:

I may not even know. I don’t know if I was listening. So let me give you a concrete example of this. In John’s gospel, we have an instance of the feeding of the 5,000 and in John’s gospel, it has this interesting little detail where it says that, as the crowd comes towards Jesus, Jesus turns to Philip and says, where are we to buy bread? Now that if we’re just reading through John’s gospel, it’s something that we may not even pick up on. But if we stop for a second and ask ourselves, I think it’s interesting to look at. Why did Jesus ask Phillip where to buy bread? I mean in the grand scheme of things, Phillip is a pretty inconsequential individual. He’s not one of the main disciples. We’re not talking Peter here. We’re not talking Matthew here. In fact, Matthew would have been a better candidate because he was a tax collector. So by trade, he would’ve known, the ins and outs of bartering and trading and economics, and even Judas is said to have been the holder of the money back. So he would have known the finances of the group. So why did Jesus ask Phillip in particular? Well, if we turn over to Luke in Luke’s account of the same story and the feeding of the 5000, we find not that Jesus turned to Philip, that’s a detail that’s only in John’s gospel, but instead of the who, it gives us where it gives us the location of the feeding of the 5000. Well, that happened in Bethsaida, in this town. And so, we have a John who tells us the who, we have Luke who tells us the where. Now, if you go back to John earlier in John’s gospel, he talks about Philip going to some of the other disciples and saying, he’s found the Messiah and it says there, so these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee. Now, why is this consequential? If we put the pieces together, both John and Luke tell us the same story, but Luke doesn’t mention Phillip in the context at all. But Luke does tell us the location of the event. John doesn’t mention the location, that Bethsaida as the setting of the miracle, but does tell us that Philip is from that Bethsaida. So why did Jesus turn to Philip well he was a local, but it’s only by putting those pieces together that we can understand why Jesus speaks to Philip in John chapter six, verse five. So when you read them in tandem, what you see are inconsequential details that otherwise would not contribute to the story, but also if you were making these stories up, you wouldn’t make them up like that. They are too inconsequential for someone to fabricate them. But what they start to do is they start to intersect in the narrative and show that not only were they talking about the same story, but they actually verify each other’s story of the feeding of the 5000. This is what’s referred to as an undesigned coincidence and Lydia McGrew in her book Hidden in Plain View, goes through the gospels and acts and shows dozens of these, that interweave through the narrative of scripture and show what scholars call verisimilitude. Now that’s a great word that we should all learn. And simply what it means is the probability of truth. What is the probability of something being truthful well historians are looking for verisimilitude. An undesigned coincidence is an example of verisimilitude. Do you mind if I give you just one more example of how we can know…

Daniel Markin:

Yeah please.

Wesley Huff:

That these things are true?

Daniel Markin:

Yeah.

Wesley Huff:

So the other one is this, this fascinating study that was done by Tal Ilan and the study was called The Lexicon of Jewish Names and Late Antiquity. And so what this group did is they looked at a number of sources. They looked at the Dead Sea Scrolls, which the listeners may have heard of. They looked at Josephus, the writings of Josephus, who was an early Jewish historian. They looked at the New Testament as a document from the first century in antiquity. And they also looked at what I refer to as Ossuaries. These are bone boxes that when Jews would bury their dead, they would take the skeletal remains and they would put them in these bone boxes. And then they would carve the name of the individual on the side of the bone box, often in Greek. And so what that gives you is it gives you a nice, tidy list of popular names within this time period. And what they did is they looked at the most popular Jewish names among Palestinian Jews between 330 BC and 280.

Daniel Markin:

And how would they get those names?

Wesley Huff:

So they got them from all of these writings. So they tallied up and they looked at, well what are the most common names that are coming up continually-

Daniel Markin:

Okay, in all of their literature that they had access to?

Wesley Huff:

Yeah. And so what they come up with a list of, Simon is the most popular name in this time period. Joseph is number two. Lazarus is number three. Judas is number four. John is number five and so on and so forth. And because so many names are mentioned, it gives you a good synopsis of what these names are. Now, the reason this is important is because names are very tricky. If you Daniel, were to come up with a story about say, we could even keep it in North America. I want you to write a story about 17th century, New England, and I want you to try to pass it off as an original. What do you think the likelihood of you getting not only accurate names for that time period, but the most popular names, correct every time?

Daniel Markin:

It would take a lot of research, like I would have to have access to the writings like this lady has done, or this author has done. I’d have to have access in order to get that right or have lived in that time.

Wesley Huff:

Exactly. And it’s incredibly hard to do that, because even year to year, not to mention decade to decade names change in popularity. And I know when I was growing up, there were a million Sarahs and there were a million Michaels. It was like every second person in elementary school, was a Sarah or Michael. And so what you do is you would create a disambiguate or you would create prefaces to their name. So you would have like Michael M and Michael P, you know going on the first letter of your last name, or you know tall Sarah and short Sarah, you would have these types of things to disambiguate them. What a couple of Christian scholars did, or scholars of the new Testament in particular, as they took this study by Tal Ilan, The Lexicon of Jewish Names and Late Antiquity. And they narrowed the timeframe to about 50 BC to 130 AD, so closer to the time of Jesus. So they just took the most popular names in that period, and they said, what’s the likelihood that the Gospels and acts get this right? Because that is incredibly hard to do. Well. The interesting thing about this is that the New Testament, particularly the Gospels gives us a good record of names. So in the Gospel of Matthew 10:2-4, you have a list of the disciples. Now what this study did is it said, okay, well, what names have qualifiers? What names have this ambiguity? And if we compare those names to the most popular names, what does that tell us? So in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 10, you have Simon called Peter. Well, okay. Simon is the number one most popular name in this study. So obviously you would disambiguate him because there’s a whole bunch of Simons running around. You have to figure out which Simon you’re talking about. This Simon is called Peter number one, yet some of the other names don’t have disambiguators. Bartholomew is number 50 on this list. He’s just Bartholomew. Why? Because you don’t need to disambiguate, or there aren’t that many Bartholomew’s running around, but this is true every time you see a disambiguator. So James is number 11, he’s the son of Zebedee. And John is number five it’s James’s brother, but Phillip is number 61, no disambiguator because it’s not as popular of a name. It’s in fact, a Greek name in the Jewish area. So you wouldn’t have as many, but then you have, Matthew, the tax collector, you have another James. So especially if you have two, James is in the bunch, you have to disambiguate them. So James the son of Alphaeus along with James, the son of Zebedee, but Thaddeus, another Greek name doesn’t have a qualifier, but then you have a second Simon along with Simon called Peter Simon, Simon the Canaanite once again, the most popular name, you have to disambiguate it. And then Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Jesus. Every time we see these qualifications, it’s a name that is the most popular name for this geographical area for this time period. Now what on earth does this tell us? Because some people might be listening to thinking, I don’t know what that means. What it means is that whoever’s writing the gospel of Matthew is getting the most inconsequential details correct. If they get the most inconsequential details correct. Is it that far of a stretch to say they also get the bigger details correct? I don’t think so.

Wesley Huff:

Especially when you combine this with things like undesigned coincidences and those two facts, both the names and the undesigned coincidences are touched on in Peter J Williams’s Can We Trust The Gospels? And actually Williams goes into further detail and says, you can actually do this with the distances between towns are correct, in the Gospels. You can do this with plant life. Just to give you a quick example, Zacchaeus was a wee little man and a wee little man was he. What tree did Zacchaeus climb? He climbed a Sycamore tree. Do you know where that story happened? The town where it happens is the only geographical area, in this area within ancient Palestine, where Sycamore trees grow. In fact, it happens in this City of Jericho and Jericho has the right soil quality to grow Sycamore trees. Now, how on earth is Luke supposed to know that unless he’s either there during the timeframe when this is happening and so he can add this very strange detail about what kind of tree it was, or as actually Luke says in his preface, he’s interviewing eyewitnesses to the events that happened. That’s exactly what Luke says at the beginning of his gospel. He says, he’s drawing up an orderly account and he’s interviewing eyewitnesses. All of these sorts of things. When we start to look at them as a whole, point back to what I said before, the verisimilitude, the appearance of truth and likelihood and probability. So not only can we be confident that what we have is what the original authors wrote. When we start to really dig into the details of what we see within the text itself, we start to see that it’s also true. It reflects the truth of what was happening in the areas that these authors claims to be writing, and the timeframes that they claim to be writing.

Daniel Markin:

So Wesley, the scholarship and those types of arguments are incredible to me. I haven’t heard the one about the names and cross-referencing the names, but those sorts of things, really when you begin to add up all of those small little arguments, like the inconsequential details, you begin to think, okay there is actually a really good probability or reason to actually believe what these people said, and that it wasn’t some sort of malicious intent to try and throw people off. Right? It seems to me that you would, you’d craft a way different story if you were trying to create a lie.

Wesley Huff:

Yeah. And these are just two very quick examples, although maybe the listener doesn’t think that I was quick with explaining those. There are dozens of others and actually an interesting fact is if you try to do some of this study with say some of the other gospels that you might’ve heard about the quote unquote lost gospels, say the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. It’s interesting to see that they get the right names for the wrong places at the wrong times a lot of the time. So they get the right names for fourth century Egypt. Now, why is that? Why would you add a character in that has the name that is popular in Egypt, in the fourth century? Well-

Daniel Markin:

Because he’s from the fourth century, he’s writing later on.

Wesley Huff:

You bet you, that is exactly right. The criteria that we hold for things like undesigned coincidences or things like the name study or the geographical studies. When you start to compare them with documents outside of the New Testament, you start to see that these other books, they start to fail these exact criteria.

Daniel Markin:

Interesting. I want to go there in just a second, but one last thought I had about the truthfulness and even just comparing it to a lie, is something that I believe I heard Greg Koukl talk about… Who’s an apologist as well. And he said that oftentimes you’ll see people who… They will die for something they believe in. Something that they know is true. So all of the disciples, most of them go and die for the gospel, because they believe it’s true. He said in a similar way, like a counterpoint is, well yeah, but there’s lots of other people in other religions who also go die for what they believe is true. But he said, the thing that you never see is people dying for something that they willingly know is a lie. If there are, all of these people who know that this story isn’t true, the probability and likelihood, if we just try and put ourselves in their shoes, that they would die for something they know is completely false is quite low. And so, as now as we just talk about things that are false, this does bring up the Gospel of Thomas. Because what about the Gospel of Thomas? What about the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, things that have not made it into what we now have as the Bible? My question is, how did we get this Bible? I’ve heard that it came from the Council of Nicaea. I mean, who chose these books? And were there any objections to these books and books that almost didn’t make it in?

Wesley Huff:

Yeah. So the Coles notes version, the very simple bare bones version of that answer, is that the only books that come from the timeframe when Jesus and his immediate followers were living. So the first century, the only books that talk about the Jesus guy that come from that time period are what we call the New Testament. So the 27 books of the New Testament are the only books that fall within the first century. If you’re looking at the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Judas, you’re talking about the second century onward, and there are criteria that you can look at to try to evaluate these things. Any early church knew of these books. You asked the question, how did these books come together? Well, in one way, nobody chose the books that are in our Bible. In one way, what the early church did is they didn’t give the authority to certain books of scripture. They recognize the authority that you’re in books already had, but were passed down from the Apostles and then treated them as such. So if you were to hop in your time machine and go back to the second century and you find, you know, Thaddeus the Christian walking around the second century and you ask him, how did you choose Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, how’d you guys come up with that? I think he would actually look at you and say, what do you mean choose. We’re recognizing these books, these are the books that were given to us by the immediate followers of Jesus. I think that would be his answer. However, in another way, as you’ve already said, there was a little bit of a struggle because there were these other books baring the names of other Apostles. And so the church did wrestle with a lot of other scriptures. The early church, we have writings of individuals like Irenaeus. Who wrote a series of writings called Against Heresies, because he was interacting with some of these other groups who were writing some of these other books. And so while at face value, there is no criteria because the early church is recognizing the books that were handed down to them. In another way, there is a very specific set of criteria, the first set of criteria, which we can see from the way that they describe these things is exactly that. It’s what’s referred to as apostolicity. Can you trace it to an apostle or someone who knew an apostle? That was a very straightforward one. And there were some books that weren’t necessarily considered heretical. They didn’t have teachings that were anti-Christian, but they just couldn’t trace them back to an apostle or someone who knew an apostle. And so, even though there might’ve been some debate about some of these writings, there’s a writing called The Shepherd of Hermes. There’s another one called Epistle of Barnabas. These were very popular books in the second century with Christians, but when they looked at them and they said, okay who are the authors? Is it someone who knew an apostle or an apostle himself? They said, no, it’s not. And so these weren’t included in the canon of scripture. And so that was a very clear criteria that the church looked at and said, is there like a chain of custody to go back to someone who has an authority of knowing Jesus or someone who knew someone who knew Jesus, apostolicity. The second one would be orthodoxy, small o, orthodoxy, nothing to do with the Greek Orthodox church or anything like that. But the word orthodox in Greek simply means right teaching. And so they asked, does it represent the right teaching that we know is being taught in the churches that were established by the apostles? Some of these churches that the letters of the New Testament were written to the church in Corinth, the church in Rome, the church in Ephesus, the church in Philippi , can we know that the teachings that Paul was teaching them or John was teaching them, or Peter was teaching them. Do some of these other books represent those right teachings. And can we see embellishments in them? Are they saying things that are a little bit outlandish? That sound a little bit questionable. That was one of the criteria. So apostolicity, orthodoxy. And then the third one sort of goes hand in hand with orthodoxy and it’s catholicity. So once again, like orthodoxy had nothing to do with say the Orthodox church. Catholicity has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic church. Small c, catholic just comes from a Greek word, katholikos, which means universal. So not only did it have to reflect the right teaching, it had to be universally accepted by the church at large, as something that yes, this has an authority we recognize. And so while in one way, there was no criteria in another way, there was a very strict set of criteria. And there were actually some books that are now in our biblical New Testament that wrestled a little bit with getting into the New Testament. And I think we should accept that as a good thing. I think it’s good that the early church went to lengths to let the dust settle on these books because they wanted to make sure that they did the due diligence to recognize what beared the authority of inspired scripture.

Daniel Markin:

Let me ask you this last question as a Christian, what is the value of all of this study?

Wesley Huff:

My biggest regret Daniel is if the listener today, listened to this podcast and the previous podcasts, and simply walked away believing that the Bible was a collection of historically accurate, properly transmitted documents. That would be my biggest regret. Now, the Bible is no less than that. The Bible is no less than the most historically attested document within all of ancient antiquity, but it is also so much more than that. It is so much more than that, because it all points to this Jesus guy. It points to this character within history who I would argue, the Old Testament is predicting. There’s one to come is Jesus. And then the New Testament describes him, Jesus appears on the scene, not only does he claim to be the Messiah, the anointed one that the Old Testament prophets were prophesying of, but he also makes some audacious claims, claims to be God himself. And then he predicts his own death and resurrection, and then he does it. Here’s something that we should take into consideration, people who rise from the dead have more credibility and authority than people who don’t rise from the dead. And so if that’s true, if what we have is what the original authors wrote, and if what we have is true, then that raises a serious question as to what that means. If Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, stepping into humanity, and then paying for our sins on the cross. That means that we have to answer the question that he himself asked his disciples. Right smack dab in the middle of Mark’s gospel, chapter eight, he looks at the disciples and he says, “who do you say that I am?” That’s the question that’s important in this whole discussion, outside from the interesting tidbits of history, outside from the fascinating aspects of manuscript dating and dead languages and ancient cultures, aside from all of that, Jesus is who he says, he is. What we have now is what the original authors wrote back then, and that means we need to ask ourselves and make a serious decision about who we say Jesus is.

Daniel Markin:

That’s a fantastic place, Wesley, to bring this to a close. Thank you for your time-

Wesley Huff:

Can I just make a shameless plug?

Daniel Markin:

Of course-

Wesley Huff:

For a second?

Daniel Markin:

Yes. Where can we find your stuff. Tell us everything.

Wesley Huff:

Yeah. So if the listeners are interested, I have a website, Wesleyhuff.com. And if you want to know more about my ministry or more even just about some of the stuff that I’ve been talking about. I have lots of resources at wesleyhuff.com. There is a resources tab at the top of my website. Where you can find my videos, other recorded podcasts. You can sign up to receive my regular newsletter, that talks about, the talks that I give on university and college campuses across Canada. And I make infographics, that explain some of the stuff that we’ve been talking about today, to try to help the average person, the but, the pew, understand the things that we have been describing in terms of the history and reliability of the Bible. So if you’re interested in more about that, go to wesleyhuff.com and check out my stuff.

Daniel Markin:

Fantastic. I’ve seen those infographics. They’re fantastic. Again, Wesley, thank you for your time. Thank you for your expertise and may the Lord bless you continually in your ministry and would he gives you the strength and perseverance to get this PhD done.

Wesley Huff:

Thank you, I appreciate that. It’s a pleasure to be with you today Daniel.

Erika:

Thanks so much for joining us today for this episode, and thanks to Wesley for taking the time out of his busy schedule to chat with us. Hopefully this conversation has challenged your perspective and opinion of the accuracy of the Bible and how we can know that the book we have today is primarily unchanged since its creation. If you’d like to hear more from Wesley, you can check out his website, wesleyhuff.com or follow him on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube. We’ll have all of those links on the episode page on our website. If you’ve been enjoying the end out podcast, we’d love to hear from you, shoot us a message on social media, we’re on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, or send us an email to info@indoubt.ca, letting us know how indoubt has shaped your worldview or answered some of the toughest questions that life has thrown at you. Don’t miss next week’s episode, where we’ll have Isaac here with Paul Carter, a writer and pastor to discuss sex and what the Bible has to say about it. We’ll see you then.

Thanks so much for listening. If you want to hear more subscribe on iTunes or Spotify, or visit us online at indoubt.ca or indoubt.com, we’re also on social media. So make sure to follow us on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter.