You're listening to the Naked Bible Podcast. To support this podcast, go to NakedBiblePodcast.com and click on the support link in the upper right-hand corner. If you're new to the podcast and Dr. Heiser's approach to the Bible, click on New Start Here at NakedBiblePodcast.com. Welcome to the Naked Bible Podcast, episode 97, our 12th Question and Answer show. I'm the layman, Trey Strickland, and he's the cult leader, Dr. Michael Heiser. Hey, Mike, how are you? Thanks for that, Trey. I shouldn't have told you that. For those of you who are wondering, I was called a cult leader this week, so congratulations are in order, I guess. Yeah, it gives the details here. Just somebody that says my material is cultish, you know, and so, hey, thanks for that. Be warmed and filled. What I wanted to say was, boy, I must be a really inept cult leader because I don't have any money and I don't have a harem. What was that? I don't have weapons. Was that from a fellow Christian? Yeah. I mean, nobody I know. Someone just had to give me the good news and email, something that they heard in their church. Really? In the church. Okay, it's getting better. All right. Well, Mike, notice we got some more reviews and ratings, so that helps us a lot. Those ratings and reviews help others find us and or decide to listen to us. So we appreciate those who champion this podcast and help those discover this great content. And I want them to listen to the podcast so they can hear questions like this because next we've got about a dozen or so questions again. And this first question for the first question up is Jason from Costa Mesa, California. He wants to know is there sex in heaven? That's not funny, Mike. Does he give a reason for that? He gives a bunch of reasons, but we're going to leave it there so you can have more time to talk about sex in heaven. This probably is related to the thing in the Gossels about the Sadducees. The whole marriage question, who's husband will this woman be and so on and so forth. So the marrying and giving in marriage and heaven and all that, that's what I would suspect anyway. When I've answered this question in the past, I haven't categorically said things like there's no sex in heaven. I actually, my real estimation of this is that we don't have any commentary on this in Scripture, which tells us that, biblically speaking, this is not either an important question or it would be sort of cast as a silly question or, again, just assigning no relevance to it. But what I'm really trying to say when I deal with this question either in the book and unseen realm or in other places is that heaven isn't a realm where there's embodiment that requires procreation. And that's typically, again, I think the major concern here, but obviously the questioner and other questioners have gotten sort of make it more, I guess, pleasure-oriented or recreational-oriented. Typically when scholars address this or even some ancient texts, that's kind of the point. We don't have the need to produce the next generation in heaven because it's not an embodied terrestrial existence. We don't need to do X, Y, or Z like we do to maintain our life here because that's the place of eternal life. So it sort of just gets kind of taken off the table because the things that require us to do to maintain ourselves and our lives are just no longer in play when you get to heaven. Now, from previous episodes, obviously, there's some sort of embodiment. Either I think it goes beyond the visual or we look like we have bodies in heaven. I think there is, again, real embodiment. We've spent some time going through 1 Corinthians 15 about that. But whatever the embodiment is, it's different. Again, it's qualitatively different. But you never actually get a discussion, or when I say a discussion, I mean any sort of exegetical thing that you can kind of hang a discussion on. You don't get any part of scripture that really says, well, this embodiment, this glorified embodiment that somehow allows for or enhances sexual activity. You don't get anything like that. It's just like it's not even a consideration. It's not something that's even on the table. So that's kind of where I would leave it. I don't like to speculate on stuff like that. I don't have anything to hang a position on other than to say there's just nothing going on about this. There is embodiment when you have a divine being become embodied and come to earth. Well, now they're on the terrestrial plane. The context is different. You're in the terrestrial world. You're not in the heavenly world. In the terrestrial world, you have not only the capacity to do these things, but you also have the activity going on because there's necessity to it. You come to earth.  You can eat meals. Well, you don't have to eat in heaven. You don't have to sustain your life, but you can do it. Because why? Well, you're on the terrestrial world. The divine being is now on the earthly plane. You don't see it in reverse. We're in the heavenly plane. We do the same thing as we do in the earthly plane. There's just nothing like that. So you get a treatment of bodily capacities when divine beings come to earth, but you don't get the opposite in Scripture. So I think that's kind of where we have to leave it, which isn't a denial, but it's also not an affirmation. Who knows? Jason does bring up a point about the sons of God. Did they have a libido since they found the beauty of human women and came down and married? So there had to be some form of desire there to start that. Yeah. And books like Enoch actually make that kind of transparently clear. There's this lust element that Scripture doesn't, but books like Enoch certainly do other sources like that. And again, I kind of file this in the category of, hey, since we're talking about the divine realm, I can't really coherently say the divine realm can't do X, Y, or Z, and so if it can do X, Y, or Z, like become embodied, then I also don't have any reason to conclude that the embodiment that is chosen lacks certain capacities that normal human embodiment would. And I take it as some sort of embodiment that operates in the terrestrial sphere along with humans where these capacities are part and parcel of that particular embodiment situation. Now, when it comes to the Genesis 6 thing, this is one of the reasons why some people prefer the, still prefer a supernaturalist view, but they prefer what would be called the mythic view. And that is the sexual language in Genesis 6-1-4 is euphemistic. It's used to convey the idea that sons of God, other divine beings, rival divine beings, rebellious divine beings, raise up their own human populations to oppose the people of Yahweh. So again, it's still a supernatural view, but it takes the sexual language euphemistically. And some people prefer that because it kind of circumvents or avoids questions like this. Again, I'm just open to both possibilities. The reason I put both of them in unseen realms is because I think people should know about both of them. The only thing that I sort of reject is that we can't look at Genesis 6-1-4 and any of these other angelic embodiment kinds of things where you have Elohim beings, divine beings become embodied and do certain things. I think it's illegitimate to strip the supernatural character out of that just for the sake of being able to sort of put it on the shelf and dismiss the passage now, which is something like what the Sethite view does. It makes the discussion go away kind of thing in its totality. So that I object to, and nobody in antiquity looked at it that way in either testament. And so that's a little bit different than this. So I just think we need, if we're going to take the supernaturalistic world view, the biblical writers, seriously, we should do that. But in this case, for some of these things, there is more than one way to look at some of this, especially the sexual language. And just a couple more points that Jason brings up is, does it the form of one's body reflect its function? Paul metaphorically asserted that no part of the body is useless, but each part is indispensable. And then also the motive of the substance. Of course, the context for that, he's using the analogy of an earthly body in an earthly context, analogy of the human body. If we don't have blood in a resurrection body, if we have bodies like Jesus did, where he's not leaking blood out of his hands, well, does that violate what Paul says? I guess blood's no more use anymore. Of course not. One's not a commentary on the other. And his last point is related to the motive of the sons of God for mating with human women. Could it be that they felt unsatisfied with non-procreative sex in heaven and wanted to establish a name for themselves? And if so, doesn't this mean that sex in heaven, if it exists, results in no creation of life and thus no name to establish a competing family line? In other words, is it just for pleasure or just that kind of thing? Well, again, who am I to say yes or no? I don't know because we don't have any material about it. I mean, there is, again, in some of the inocular literature, you get this sense that once the watchers come to Earth and they get human embodiment, then they experience, again, these human impulses and urges and they want to act on them. So there's a little bit of an element of that, again, because they have this terrestrial embodiment. But does that work in the other direction? Again, we're working with no data here. And so, again, I'm perfectly comfortable when I don't have something to hang a view on, just saying, hey, I don't know. I don't know. Okay. Our next question is from Hiram in Puerto Rico. What difference can you point out between glorified believers and the angel of the Lord from the Old Testament? I got a little confused on that from the last chapter of the N. C. Ram in the Revelation 3.12 interpretation. Given when it was pointing out to glorified believers bearing the name. I thought that was the key point for this angel to be Yahweh embodied. Well, what I would say in relation to Revelation 3.12, let me just read it. It says, the one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it and I will write my name on him. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven and my own new name. I think we have to draw attention to the fact that this doesn't say that God puts his name in, the person in the believer. That right away is sort of a difference between the wording here in Exodus 23 where my name is in this particular angel. We don't have that language here that God puts his name in this believer. In the New Testament era, of course, the spirit resides in the believer, but I think the language here just generally is pointing to, again, making... I mean, look, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. So you've already got this sense earlier in New Testament books that the church, Christians individually and corporately, are the temple of God. So I tend to think this language just kind of echoes that. And what's in the believer, the reason we're in the temple is we have the presence of God dwelling in us in the spirit. And you say, well, that does sound kind of like what's going on in Exodus 23, except for it's the only circumstance where you see that. And it refers to, again, this being that is not human, this being that is non-human and is, again, coming in an embodied form and God telling Moses, hey, this person here, this angel, this messenger, this being I'm sending on the way to lead you to the land, is me. Again, we don't have in the Old Testament this sense of the spirit taking up residence in each believer. In the Old Testament, it's much more unusual, much more localized. So I would say that, plus, again, the slight difference in language here, I think distinguishes the two ideas. Our next one's from Ex Avion 251. Not 252, but 251. That sounds like a cult member thing right there. Giving names. These are your peeps. Maybe it's work. Okay. So Ex Avion 251 was wondering what Mike's thoughts are on the geographical location of the Garden of Eden. What do you think of the idea of it being underneath the present day Persian Gulf? Well, none of the proposed orientations or the proposed locations for the Garden of Eden, there have actually been a good number of them. None of them are really completely satisfactory. Of course, there is a sort of a plausibility scale. Some of them are just totally wacky and others have sort of gotten academic attention because of the geographical indicators in Genesis 2. From what I've read, I think this is probably, again, some location near, at, or presently covered by water underneath the Persian Gulf. I think it's fair to say, and I'm not alone here, but I think it's fair to say this is the one with the least problems. And so as of today, it's probably the view that is kind of the most workable, or at least has the most potential to be the answer to this question. But beyond that, I don't think we can say anything with certitude. Okay. Next one's from Jonathan in the UK. What are your thoughts on the identity of Allah, of the Muslims, a distorted view of Yahweh, a rebel Elohim who passed on revelation to Muhammad, or something else? I think that Allah in the Quran is more or less a distorted view of Yahweh because so much of the Quran draws on the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament for that matter, and then recasts the single God that Muslims worship and follow. So I think that probably has the most explanatory power, at least in terms of the content of the Quran. I mean, if you're talking about, again, the radicalized thinking and, again, certain hyper-literalistic interpretations of Jihad in the Quran, I certainly think it's within the realm of possibility that that is demonically motivated and engineered. But that's a bit of a different question than saying, hey, when we read about Allah in the Quran, is that just a really distorted picture of the single God knowing, again, that in their geographical context, plus, folks, I don't know if you've realized this, but you ought to read the Quran. And if you read the Quran, one thing's going to become very clear. There's a lot of material in the Quran that comes out of the Old Testament and the New Testament. So that tells you they have the same sort of monotheistic orientation point. And so that is what leads me to say that they have just taken the true God, the God of the universe, so to speak, the Creator God, and recast him and refashioned his character to be something more favorable to, again, the religious predilections of whoever produced the Quran. So, again, I don't think we need to see anything more mystical in it than that. But as far as the behavior that's attached to it and the way certain things get articulated within Islam by some who want to use it as a tool for jihad, I think there's certainly some demonic stuff going beyond that. I think that's a distinct possibility. And for our listeners, that snort was not Mike. That was his pug. That was my productivity pug. Yes. That was Mori, the productivity pug. I disturbed him. Yes. I disturbed him. He was on my lap doing his job. Yes. Giving me energy, snapping energy from the pug to do the pug. Well, I'm glad he's enjoying this episode. So, tell him to relax. All right. All right. All right, Mike. Well, the next question is from Matthew. And then the one after that is from Lindsay. They're kind of asking the same question. So I'm going to read the one from Matthew first and then follow it up with Lindsay's question. And Matthew's question is, he would love to hear Mike's take on what the seraph are, particularly in relation to the bronze snake incident and numbers. And Lindsay wants to know, should we imagine there being any kind of physical resemblance between real divine beings and their representative images have found throughout history? That is, do seraphim really look like snakes with wings?  But this takes us into all sorts of things. There's, boy, this is one of those cases where I wish, you know, there were certain journal articles that were sort of publicly available. And I'm trying to, I'm racking my brain here. This one might actually be publicly available because it's from Biblika. So if you want to Google Biblika, B-I-B-L-I-C-A, and then journal and put in the last name, P-R-O-V-E-N-C-A-L. Okay. I think his first name is Philip, but I can be mistaken there. There's an article on the term seraph, the seraph terminology. And I think this is really a good article because it goes into the zoology, behind the terminology. And there's a lot of good material in this, in this journal article about how the term, the biblical term seraph, which is often kind of assumed to be the verb, you know, to burn, sort of that typical view kind of overlooks the fact that we also have a noun here and we have an Egyptian term, SRF, okay, for lack of, you know, being able to illustrate hieroglyphs here. But we have an Egyptian term or the same consonants that means snake, okay.  It comes from cobra imagery where, you know, when you're looking at a cobra, it can, the skin on the sides of it can become sort of flanges, that protrude from its body on either side. That is where the ancient, you know, Semitic idea of the winged serpent comes from because it looks like it's got appendages. And this terminology, again, from Egypt, really kind of covers both the burn and the serpent because, you know, you have certain parts of the Middle East that where you had spitting cobras and if you were hit by the venom, it would burn or if you're bitten, it would burn.  It's metaphorical language for the pain that it inflicts and you have the same situation going on here. So you have SRF to burn, you have SRF, you know, serpent. And they're kind of like two sides of the same coin. So as far as the terminology, I think that is, you know, the right way to understand the term itself. It's not just burn, it also, again, is serpent. And so when you go to the Biblical seraphim, you know, the question is, is this actually what a seraphim looks like?  Well, the problem with that is you have, you know, a seraph, an SRF in Egypt, this particular term, is also used of a Divine Throne Guardian. You say, well, why is that a problem? Well, because the Bible not only uses that term for a Divine Throne Guardian, but it also uses Cherub, Karuv, Akkadian, which, again, in Mesopotamian, you know, thinking is also a Throne Guardian. So you can't really have a Throne Guardian that looks like a serpent, and then, you know, well, did it change its appearance when it looks like, you know, a cherub, a winged, you know, kind of bovine character or something like that?  I don't think we can look at this material and say, hey, you know, if like, well, I'm walking down the road some day and I'm encountered by a seraphim, I don't know what they're going to look like. I don't think that's the point. I think these terms are used of Divine Beings whose specific role is thought to be guarding the Throne of the Almighty. You say, well, why the two different orientations? Why the two different terms? Why the two different, you know, iconographical appearances? Well, you would use, you're going to see Cherub and this, I'm going to leave the statement at what I'm going to say here on why, picks up on why this would be controversial. But you're going to see Kharuv, the Mesopotamian term used in texts that were composed in a Mesopotamian context because that is going to communicate with the immediate audience of the day when the biblical writer uses Kharuv, Kharuvim. People are going to know instantly what that is and what its role is because they've seen that in the Throne iconography of the particular location that they're in. If you use the SRF, Seraph, okay, in Egyptian, if you use that, well, that's a good indication that that text was composed in some historical context where the Egyptian iconography, the Egyptian trappings of royalty would have been seen and understood and evident. And so that is why the biblical writer uses an Egyptian term in one text and a Mesopotamian term in another. It has to do with the context in which the original readers would have been familiar at the time of the writing of the text. I'm going to leave it there and again, we'll see if listeners pick up on why that might be a controversial statement. And if it is, you can send that to Trey and we can comment on it in the next Q&A. But I don't think any of these descriptions can really be used to sort of zoologically classify divine beings because divine beings by nature are not actually embodied. You say, well, if they came here to Earth, if a Throne guardian came here to Earth and they wanted a human to know it was a Throne guardian, could they pick that appearance so someone familiar with their Bible would know that, hey, that's a Throne guardian over there. Well, I suppose so. I suppose that could happen. But what you typically see is these are heavenly visions where prophets or whoever are, again, transported into the divine realm. And again, that's how the role of this particular divine being is telegraphed to the one who views it. But by nature, they're not embodied. They don't have the forms of beings that would, or excuse me, that creatures that would correspond to sort of the terrestrial life. But when we're writing about those things, that helps to communicate what they do in the spiritual world. So that's why this kind of language is used. So I don't know if that really helps. But again, that's my perspective on it. All right, Lindsay. Second question is, if after Jesus's return, we are to take the place of the rebellious divine council members and rule the nations, Revelation 2, 26 to 27, of what whom do the nations consist? Does Mike agree with the premillenism idea that resurrected, glorified saints will rule over a still-fallen world that includes un-glorified unbelievers? If not, who is around to make up the nations? Well, I view the final consummation of the kingdom to be the new Eden. And that's really about all I can say. I know that doesn't conform to either necessarily of the options that the questioner put into the question. So in that respect, I don't follow either traditional premillennial thinking or traditional amillennial thinking. I think that the final form of the kingdom is going to be on earth. And I view it as the new earth. So who's occupying the nations? The answer would be people, glorified people, and whatnot. I don't think you have to have bad guys to be able to rule over the nations, to be able to displace and replace the rebellious sons of God and reconstitute the divine council. I don't know why you need fallen people to do that.   And again, we're not told a whole lot about how this is going to work, but I don't see the necessity of having fallen people in a future millennium. I actually don't even like the term millennium, even though I believe in a coming earthly kingdom, because to me, millennium is too short. And if I'm identifying it with the new earth, again the globalized Eden, then it's too short. We're not going to limit it to a thousand years. On the one hand, I affirm this element of what premillennialism traditionally has affirmed, a coming future literal kingdom, however you want to say that. And that amillennialists just don't seem to like. Again, they're preferring the kingdom being now, totally, period. And then we go off into heaven, whatever that is. But I think the biblical idea of heaven is actually the new earth. So if that fits in somebody's system, that's nice. If it doesn't fit into somebody's system, that's okay too. I don't worry about how I'm sort of tiptoeing through systems too much. Alright, Brian has a pair of questions, and the first one is, Dr. Heiser has been on the Trinity's podcast in the past with Del Tugge. Del is a Christian Unitarian, and I don't think Dr. Heiser interprets scripture this way, but I could be wrong. Can Dr. Heiser? Correct, I am not a Unitarian. That was easy. Alrighty. Second one is, I wonder if Dr. Heiser would have any guidance on the scholar George Hawkins. A friend of mine bought his Pimper collection, and I wondered about the quality of his work. Yeah, I can't really comment on him because I've not heard of him. So that was easy too. We need more questions. Well, can you talk about the Pimper? Well, I don't know a whole lot about Pimper as well. I know we have this sort of older creationist model. I'm not sure if Pimper, was Pimper a gap theorist? I can't recall specifically if Pimper adopted the gap theory or not. I mean, if he did, then a lot of listeners are going to know that I'm not positively predisposed to the gap theory. Yeah, I have this book, Early's Earth, and I can't remember. I kind of think he is, but I don't want to tag him with that without actually going back to look it up. Yeah, that's probably all I can contribute to that question. Early's Ages. I need to go back and read that one. Yeah, I'm just not sure where he's at. Alright. The next one is from Jad in Melbourne, Australia. I apologize if I put your name, Jad. Here is his question, and this is a important one. How should I approach talking to members of my church about much of the subject matter that is discussed in your work? I'm frequently told by my older brothers and sisters in Christ whenever I hint at some of these topics that I shouldn't bring up subjects that could cause the faith of others to be lost or weakened. What do I go to to talk about these things with at all? I'm being a little sarcastic here, but there's an element of sincerity here too. I don't know how it would harm the faith of other people to know their Bible better. Now, if you're talking about things like talking about the book of Enoch or something like that, I can see that a little bit more because that's an external source to Scripture. But for the life of me, I really don't understand how walking up to someone and saying, hey, let's devote ourselves for a month to studying Genesis 6-1 through 4 and seeing if the sons of God and Nephilim were just normal people or something beyond that. How does that harm someone's faith? What? If you're linking the gospel to stuff like this, you've got bigger problems than Mike's book. Then you don't understand the gospel, period. If he means harming the faith of someone to mean something like making people have questions about Bible passages, well, that's sort of a byproduct of having a pulse. To be honest with you, if you're a thinking adult and if you're devoting yourself to reading Scripture, I don't know how you could read Scripture and not have questions pop into your head because the alternative to that, if questions never pop into your head, then it's like saying, well, everything in the Bible that I'm reading here is self-evident. There are no questions. I understand everything completely and perfectly. I just don't know how anyone who would be a sincere reader of Scripture could ever think that. I don't really quite know how to approach the question other than throwing out those random thoughts. Look, I guess on a bad day, if I were at this person's church or small group and got this question, I would say, look, if you really believe this thing that's sitting on your lap is the Word of God, why wouldn't you want to know all that you possibly could about it? And if you have questions and you're bound to have questions because the Bible, it just transcends a surface self-evident reading. I've never met anybody who reads the Bible that didn't have a question about it. So how does wanting to get an answer to a question, how is that a questionable enterprise if you really believe this is the Word of God? I don't understand the approach of anyone who would believe that and then would turn around and say, well, good grief, I don't want to know too much about it. If I have questions, I don't really want to probe it too much. I don't really want answers to these questions because that might generate other questions. And I don't really want to know too much about the Word of God, do I? I just don't get it. I don't get the whole approach, the whole premise, the whole mindset. And again, I feel for the question or the struggle because I still get this.  Of course, that's just absurd. I mean, I still do get these kinds of questions and I can read on people's faces that I interact with that they're a little disturbed and when you ask them the question, they're going to, well, of course I want to know about the Bible and then my follow-up question is, well, then what's the problem? This is part of growing as a Christian. This is part of hungering for truth. God bothered to give you truth and why you would want to sort of turn the spigot off at some point. I don't understand. It really comes down, I think, to sort of comfort level kinds of things with people. They like the feeling that they have everything kind of nailed down. They like the feeling that their pastor has sort of got everything under his belt and if it's important, the pastor will tell me about it. But again, I don't see how that really honors the idea that God has given us this thing we call the Word of God. We are commanded to study it, to show ourselves approved, all of the verses that we know, and yet somehow our process of doing that is having it dispensed to us through an authority figure. I just literally, I have difficulty comprehending even the whole approach, the whole hesitation, but I know it's real. All right, our next one's from Andrew and he writes, I often hear preachers say in salvation context that we must contact the blood of Christ and baptism. I can find no such passage that claims we must contact it or that it is even contactable. If we follow the allusions to many of the sacrifices that offerings in Leviticus, it doesn't even appear that the blood and the worshiper ever contact each other. The only reference I can find where man and blood are connected is in Exodus 24. Do we contact Christ's blood and baptism as is suggested from pulpits? Or are they selling snake oil? Yeah, this one's easy too. They're selling snake oil. I have never actually heard this idea, contacting the blood of Christ through baptism. Very strange, very strange. And the questioner says, hey, I can't find a single verse for this. Well, that ought to tell you something. I would assert again to the questioner and to the people selling him the snake oil that if we can't find our theology in the biblical text, by definition it isn't biblical theology. So again, that's just sort of an axiomatic thing. To be able to call your theology biblical, you actually ought to be able to find it in there somewhere. So that would be my answer to that. But that's a very, very strange idea. It has me wondering if it's sort of like code language for some other idea that might be more familiar. But I don't want to read into the question. Okay, our last question is from Jay in Midland, Texas. If you were granted an audience with Paul the Apostle after the resurrection, and you could only ask him one or two questions, what would you ask him? This has me wondering if after the resurrection means like when Paul was alive post resurrection, or after the, like when we all get to heaven, or is there any indication in his question that there's a distinction there? No. All right, well, let me, I guess it'll be, I'll assume that it's, hey, when I'm in heaven and I get to see Paul or something like that, I ask Paul, boy, I thought I hadn't, something just popped into my head, but now the question doesn't make any sense. I thought a good question would be, hey, what are you doing up there? But if I'm there, then I already know that. So, well, I, you know, if the point of the question is when I get to be there with Paul, I really wouldn't have any questions. What else could he mean? I mean, help me out here, Trey, what else? Maybe when he was still alive. Read the question again. If you were branded an audience with Paul, the apostle, after the resurrection. Okay. So let's just say here on earth. Resurrection, all right? So I'm living back when Paul's there. So Paul's not in the resurrected body. Paul is Paul, and we're living after the resurrection of Christ. So that's how we're reading it now? Does that sound right? Let's go with that, yeah. All right. So if I went back in time and I talked to Paul, post resurrection, what would I ask him? Boy. Yeah. I've never actually even thought, you know, I feel like I'm in a Star Trek episode where I can be Captain Janeway and say, I swore at the Academy, I would never do that time travel thing. I don't know how many people in our audience are Trekkies, but that's, you know, I've never really thought about this time travel thing. What would I ask Paul?  The short answer is, I don't know. Yeah. So you thought this was a good question to end with, Trekkie? I have no idea what I'd ask him. You know, I might ask him if he, if he really, because this is something I suspect. I suspect that Paul believed that he wouldn't die until he reached Spain. So I might actually ask him that. But again, that presumes he's had his call to be the Apostle of Gentiles and sort of has that kind of rooted, you know, in his heart, in his mind. But if, you know, if I knew that, and he was like on his missionary journey somewhere, I would, that would probably be something I'd ask him, you know, about the whole getting to Tarshish thing. You know, is this how you define completion? And while we're getting into his epistles, I might ask him something like, Hey, do you think that there is a future for national, you know, ethnic Israel? Or is the Israel of God now only the church? Because that's a key eschatological question that I don't think Paul is clear on, you know, in his epistles. So I might ask him for clarification of that particular issue. It's just such a thorny one.  In other words, was he, was he being oppressed, you know, by entities, or it was just sort of an expression, you know, that refers to some physical malady, something like that. So, so there's a few, those are things I'd want to know. But again, you know, are you a Christian yet or not? That, that might be the first one, you know, out of my mouth. If we just ran into each other, you know, in some place, and I knew it was Paul, I'd want to know that first. I'd probably ask him if he prefers Saul or Paul.  Well, all right, Michael, that's all the questions we got for this one. We appreciate it. And can you give us an update about your companion books that we can't get? Yeah. Yeah, thanks for putting it that way. Well, hopefully by the time that this, this airs, people will be able to get those books. I mean, the problem is that Amazon, let me just back up a little bit. I had announced on the blog that, hey, you know, the question answer companion by Doug Van Dorn, you know, for unseen realm is now available on Amazon and Ron Johnson's leader guide is available for supernatural. Then somebody emailed me literally the next day and said, hey, you know, I went up and look and Amazon already says copies available in one to three weeks, you know, what's up with that? And in view of the struggle, you know, to get unseen realm launched that we had with Amazon, I just thought, oh great, you know, here we go again. But I, so I asked in the building and they said basically the problem was that Amazon hadn't received the shipment yet from the printer. And so hopefully by, by the time of this podcast, that is no longer an issue. If it is, I got nothing else for you. I don't know what the problem is, but that's what I was told. So hopefully that, you know, will be taken care of. Sounds good. And Mike next week, we have another interview. Yep. Yeah, we do this one. I mean, I always look forward to them when we schedule them and they all have a purpose. You know, I'm trying to get people, you know, involved in the podcast that I view as having some role in divine council content or what we're trying to do. Both now and, and, you know, ultimately down the road with the nonprofit with McClott. And our next guest is going to be Tim Andrews, who was the guy who under, you know, undertook, you know, the task of organizing the unseen realm event in Atlanta last November. Now I didn't know it at the time, I discovered it pretty quickly when I got to Atlanta, that Tim is involved with a pretty large house church network for lack of a better way to describe it and that he's been doing that kind of thing for 20 years or more. And we just had some really interesting conversations because my only conception of house church, I've never been in a house church was, you know, we're a group of people meeting here. We don't like the pastor and there's no other church in town. So we still want to do church stuff. So here we are.  But that did not seem to be the case at all. I mean, I'm sure Tim would say they get some of that. But I mean, to have this, to have this, this effort, this thing be so enduring and actually growing. And again, just some of the other things I heard about it, the way they conduct themselves and what they do and sort of what their, their goals are in why they do what they do. It really made me think about the whole, you know, again for people who've, who've read the portent, which is where the term McLott comes from. There is this, you know, this sense of believers who for whatever set of circumstances are just, have just taken it upon themselves to do what needs to be done. And they're not waiting for, again, an authority figure to give them permission to do it. And I've, I've brought this, this up on, on other podcasts. You know, what if church was not a time or a place? You know, what if, what if the things we associate with church were no longer a reality, no longer available to us? Like buildings, you know, if we were monitored by the state, you know, what if churches lose tax exempt status?  I mean, what, what if it had to be something different for, you know, again, some, some specific set of circumstances, how would, how would we function? And Tim is a guy who has thought a lot about that and has actually tried to experiment and put things into practice and sort of just see how it goes. And they, you know, he was just telling me they've learned an awful lot about doing things this way, both good and bad, things they would do again, things they wouldn't do again. And I thought it would be a really interesting discussion to bring to the podcast because of, again, this is one of the things that McLott is about, networking believers, you know, finding out who, who has experienced doing this or that, that we might, you know, find valuable down the road, who is, who has a particular skill set to help, you know, believers out in some other part of the country. And Tim is really into the Divine Council content. He said it has really helped what they do in terms of their content, teaching, you know, in this network a lot, which is why he wanted to organize the event. So I think it'll be a really interesting discussion just because of those elements, you know, that those, that this is what he, he sort of can bring to the table.  And I think he'll help us think about these things better. All right, we're looking forward to that. All right, Mike, is there anything else you'd like to add to the show? No, I think that's it. Okay, we appreciate you answering our questions. And just want to thank you all for listening to the Naked Bible Podcast.


Local food defines people and in North American culture we got away from that for a long time. Our answer was we should not only be artisan brewers but we should run an artisan kitchen and we should go into our landscape and we should find food that grows here. The amazing thing that local food causes us to do is to celebrate seasonality. It forces us to change our menu on an ongoing basis. It makes it way more interesting for the consumer. What we all want to do is eat things that express the landscape that we come from.


That sad face. I thought Corbin loved you. I don't like that. That sad face makes me happy. It's true it does. Reactions. Idiots. I'm Corbin. I'm Ashley. I'm reckoned Corbin gets happy by other people being sad. Please don't talk about my happiness. Please follow us on Instagram and turn on all juicy content. Oh, so juicy.  Paul is on Earthquake. David is posted on Patreon. Earthquake. Earthquake on my path. Backing to a new trailer that just came out today. Like a new trailer of a new film for a new time in a new world. A Tamal film. Cool. It's called Dear Comrade. Been easy named lately. But it's starring Vijay, say his last name for me. Lexi. Lexi, where are you? Ashley? I don't know where Lexi is. Okay. So it's Deveraconda. Deveraconda. But he is the guy from Arjun Reddy. He's Arjun Reddy. Do you remember? Do you remember him? Yeah. Okay. Obviously that was the original Kabir Singh. Yes. Yes. This is that same actor. He's really popular. I wanted to see Kabir Singh. I wanted to take you to the theaters and it was gone. Like after a week I'm really mad. But here we go. I want to see you. Give me happiness. If you want to play, stop immediately. Or I'll have to stop. This is your problem. You're too impulsive. Thank you, sir. If you have any problem, you'll be very upset. Do you know who I am?  What's wrong with you? You're always like this. State player? State player? I don't think he'll tell me. I see Karthi. She's a Dosti. It's very difficult. I'll be with you in your journey.  I'll be with you for a year. This looked like it had some elements of that without giving anything away to somebody who hasn't seen it. Sitting next to us. Can't wait for you to see that film. Interesting. It had a lot of storylines. I'm guessing he falls for this girl. Who is a female cook. Which is awesome. He's got anger issues.  Does he die? No, he doesn't die. I don't think he dies. Unless he comes back to life. Maybe something happened. Clearly he's gone for a few years. He's gone for years and he's fine. But then he's not fine. Maybe he has to leave for legal reasons. Or his life's been threatened. Or he was arrested. Yeah, he was in handcuffs for a while. I don't know. There's a lot going on there. It looks very much character driven by the two leads. The most recent thing we saw was Kabir saying. Sorry, Kabir. Kabir's saying, I'm co-organizing. And hey, if it's a love story, I'm interested. We're here for it. Yeah. Especially, I mean, what's the production company behind this? Does it even say? It just says the names of the producers. I'm not sure. Production company, Big Bend Cinemas. I don't know what they've done.  We probably won't get it released here. Probably not. But they used cinematography. It looked really good. Really nice. You know what else looked really good? Also the song in the beginning. Yeah, the action song. The other thing I noticed, and I think they may have done it for them, some of the sound editing and mixing on this are some smaller details. Like when they're sitting at the table talking, they had some crickets in the background that were really clear and crystal. I noticed several spots where some of the attention that was paid to the detail of sound in the trailer was really great. Yeah. Yeah. Well, let us know what you thought. Let us know in any details we missed out on. I'm sure there's a thousand people in there we didn't recognize. I'm sure. Yep. Sorry. Sorry. But yeah, let us know what you thought of it. Please.


What happens if you eat eggs every day for 30 days? Well, if you've read my books, you know as a general rule, the less animal protein you eat the better. So let's go into the problems with eating eggs every day for 30 days. First of all, let's talk about insulin-like growth factor 1, IGF 1 and animal protein correlation. So first of all, what is insulin-like growth factor 1? Well, insulin-like growth factor as the name implies is a growth hormone growth factor and it looks a lot like insulin. Now most of us produce insulin-like growth factor and we should. In fact, up until the age of 40, we in general produce a lot of growth factor because we're growing. After age 40, however, our insulin-like growth factors should decline. Why? Because if you look at super super old people, late 90s, early 100s, in my practice and in other practices, they tend to run very low insulin-like growth factors. And if you look at people who have low insulin-like growth factors, they have a very low incidence of cancer development as opposed to people who have a high insulin-like growth factor actually have a very high rate of cancer development. And it makes sense. Growth factor. As we get older, quite frankly, there's nothing in us that we want to grow. There are really three factors that influence our level of insulin-like growth factor. One of them is the more sugar we eat or things that turn into sugar, the higher our insulin-like growth factor goes. But the second is the more animal protein we eat, and that includes eggs, the higher our insulin-like growth factor goes. The third factor, which I talk a lot about in unlocking the keto code, is the more time-restricted eating, intermittent fasting we do, limiting our eating window to about six to eight hours per day, the lower our insulin-like growth factor. And as I talked about in one of my earlier books, St. Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri, has a big nutrition center where they've studied calorie-restricted individuals. And this is the Calorie Restriction Society, where in general, they eat 30% less calories per day than normal in an effort to live a long time. They took these people and asked some of them to substitute a purely vegan calorie source and followed their insulin-like growth factor. And their insulin-like growth factor in these calorie-restricted people dropped over 50 points just by eliminating animal protein. So that's one of the factors of limiting egg consumption. So how much protein should you be eating? Well, Dr. Walter Longo from USC. And I agree on this, and it is controversial, except Dr. Longo is one of the great longevity researchers who's followed this. I use his protein formula that I publish in all my books. And in general, all you need to eat in terms of protein is about 20 to 30 grams per day. Now, I know you've heard that, oh, my goodness, for adequate protein, you actually should eat as many grams of protein as body weight in kilograms. The average human being who is 150 kilograms, that's 150 pounds, that's 70 kilograms, so you need 70 kilograms of protein, not so fast. Again, protein stimulates insulin-like growth factor. Plus, unbeknownst to a lot of nutritionists, is we recycle our own protein. Every day, we slough about 20 grams of protein into our digestive tract from cells that line our intestines. And we eat that protein.  The other thing that's important to realize is that you don't need protein to build muscle. For instance, from the American Dietetic Association, there's a fascinating study looking at young adults and senior citizens. They were given either 90 grams of protein per day or 30 grams of protein per day. It turns out that the 30 grams of protein completely provided for muscle synthesis in both the young people and the old people. So the 90 grams of protein did nothing more for protein synthesis. Nothing more, whether you were young or old. So where did that extra 60 grams of protein go? Well, we don't waste calories. So if we're not going to use it for protein synthesis and clearly we don't, we convert it into sugar. And it's called gluconeogenesis. And guess what that sugar does? It becomes fat. So you're fooling yourself into thinking you need more protein. Now, there's one thing that Dr. Longo and I do disagree with. He thinks that after the age of 65, you need more protein in your diet. And he's right, but he's wrong. The reason he's right is if you look at senior citizens and look at their protein requirement, it appears that they need more protein. But what that doesn't take into account is that normally we have a surface area for absorbing nutrients of about the size of a tennis court. But because of damage from our diet, particularly from lectins, senior citizens have a surface area of a ping-pong table. So naturally you would have to have more protein that you ingest to get absorbed through that ping-pong table. And what I've shown in my patients is I reduce their protein but take away their lectins and their total protein and their albumin, which is how we measure protein in humans, actually goes up, lowering their protein, but taking away the lectins. So it's the damage that's been done. The older we get because of the foods, not the fact that we need more protein. Dr. Adkins, this year I turned 72, which is the age that Dr. Adkins died at. Dr. Adkins was originally, was a cardiologist. He was originally a high fat doctor. He got into so much trouble with the American Heart Association that he morphed into a high protein doctor because what's wrong with protein? Unfortunately, if you watched him through the years, he actually became obese from eating a high protein diet because he was taking that extra protein that he couldn't use for protein muscle synthesis and turning it into fat. And that's really one of the sad legacies of the Adkins diet. All right, so to answer the question, is it okay to eat eggs every day for a month if you are very careful to limit your protein consumption, especially animal protein?  So if you wanted to get all of your protein from those two and a half eggs, be my guest. But you should view those eggs as a way of getting other nutrients into your body, particularly olive oil. If you go to Crete and ask for breakfast, they'll bring you a bowl with about a half an inch of olive oil with two lightly poached eggs.  And it's a great way for the eggs to be a vehicle to get olive oil into your mouth. So if you want to do that, great. Another option, as I write about in all the books, in general, the value of the egg is in the yolk. That's where all the nutrients, all the vitamins are. The protein is mostly in the whites. So do yourself a favor, have mostly yolks, take like three yolks and one white, give the other egg whites to your dog. Your dog will just think you're the best person. But not just any eggs. Make sure they're either pasture raised or at the very least, omega three eggs. In general, omega three eggs are fed flaxseed and or algae. And they actually do have a very nice content of short chain omega three in their yolks. The yolks also are excellent sources of choline. Choline is one of the most important factors for brain health. And the egg yolk is one of the best sources for choline. Now, beware if you see free range or cage free. Those chickens by law never have to go outside. Be wary of the words organic. First of all, you can't make bugs organic. But you can make corn and soybeans organic.  And you certainly don't want that. Unfortunately, I have a number of patients with autoimmune diseases where it was the organic chicken eggs that was part of the problem in causing their leaky gut. Instead of eggs for breakfast, try some alternatives. Most store bought yogurts have tons of sugar, so buyer beware. Most store bought yogurts, even Greek yogurt, contain the wrong protein called casein A1. Get yourself some plain goat yogurt.  If you want it sweetened, buy some allulose. Allulose is a true sugar that has no calories that is actually a prebiotic. So you can get the probiotics from yogurt, mix in some prebiotics and you're good to go. Also, there's another great yogurt that I've actually had in my podcast. The founder called Lava Yogurt, L-A-V-V-A. It has pilli nuts and coconut. And it has a generous dollop of prebiotic fiber from green banana already in the mix. And it has living bacteria by certification. It's a great option. Look for it in most whole food stores. Have some pop sorghum cereal with coconut milk, but please make it the plain coconut milk. Have a sliced avocado drizzled with olive oil. I recently returned from Paris. That's what I had for breakfast every morning. They didn't blink an eye. Out came my sliced avocado with olive oil. No one said, gee, what a funny request. This next one is sure to surprise you. Good sleep actually stops you from becoming insulin resistant and good sleep stops you from becoming carbohydrate hungry.


What's the word y'all? I feel like it's been a minute since we've done one of these like reactionary videos to a Bleach Report article And this one was very intriguing to me every NBA team's most underrated player if you see articles like this shoot them to me If you want to see me react. I'm Dan Fevelle. Let's see what you got most underrated I thought this was interesting because there are some teams out there that I would consider don't have any underrated players Which means I just think the world has their eyes open to the talent on the roster and some teams have multiple underrated players So I'm curious to what Dan Fevelle thinks on every NBA organization started off Atlanta Hawks I was gonna say that's probably most of the players on the Atlanta Hawks I think the people whose eyes are now open to the Atlanta Hawks is the conference finals run But if I had to take a guess it's probably DeAndre Hunter And it is DeAndre Hunter elite level defense office is still coming around and still good offensively makes a lot of sense This dude can guard so many different positions have had pretty good outings guarding star players in a short NBA career so far Just elite level defensive player. So Solid who's next? I don't even know alphabetical order. I struggle with that. Let's just take a look the Boston Celtics Peyton Pritchard I mean, I guess he did drop 91 in a program game and Then flew back to Vegas and get clamped up by Davion Mitch What whatever whatever the Boston Celtics though are one of those organizations where I don't consider them having an underrated player Maybe it is Robert Williams because he signed an extension that looked like it might be a steal in two to three years Actually, I would probably put Robert Williams here more than Peyton Pritchard But maybe Peyton Pritchard's gonna surprise me a little bit more in his in his next year campaign. I don't know next team is I'm not gonna Brooklyn has Nicholas Claxton. Okay. All right now You know, I'm not always right when it comes to draft Honestly, I promise you in 20% when it comes to the NBA draft But Nicholas Claxton was one of my favorite players in his draft class So to see him get some some buzz and some recognition is really solid Like I said, I shoot like 20% you can count all of the misses But I'm gonna tell you about my hits and this Nicholas Claxton was one of them I think Bruce Brown could have been here as well But I think a lot of people realize how solid Bruce Brown could be other than the miss layup But Nicholas Claxton so solid as a center his ability to switch on to guards and kind of hold his own is very very underrated He might be a very key part to an already super stack Brooklyn next team this season next team I Don't know alphabetical Tarot year. All right, Tarot year got paid four years 97 million is the exact number Maybe it's time. I deplane the Tarot year is widely unappreciated bear wagon. He thought himself ready to move on to okay But yeah, I mean when when he originally signed to Charlotte a lot of people like oh, I mean He was a good as a backup. He was good in those that conference finals run But he really done that much else and he had one like not so great year in Charlotte But last year he was he was amazing for them so amazing that they were like Devonte Graham We're about to lose you and restrict the free agency because we know Terry rose year and the mellow ball fit a little bit better I like the the arc of Terry rose year and I like the tattoo in the back of his head the Chicago Bulls. Thank you Stop it. Okay. All right. I've went on this tangent even before the Marta Rosen was a bull Every single year bleach report ESPN sports illustrated all these places have these publications We're getting the top 100 players in the league. It happens every year and the Marta Rosen be so so low on these things And now I got to defend him even more now. He's a bull. I still believe the Marta Rosen might be under under Appreciated underrated. He might be still slightly overpaid, but I think two things can exist, you know And his kick game is fit game. I'm excited to see what he brings to league fist. Somebody got the union join So, okay, okay, okay. I agree with that one college. Oh, that's two for two Mr. Dan you killing the game right now because though college sex and average 20 something 24 Whatever, I still believe that a lot of people have pigeonholed him and people that I know like people on my podcast have done It's to have already pigeonholed him is like, oh, he's gonna be elite level six man But I think he could probably be more than that You know, I think he is an underrated player in the in the whole whole eco spear of the NBA. Is that the right word? I don't really know I do agree with this. I agree with this He also said Larry Nance is a good good candidate. I Larry Nance is an amazing candidate for article like this for sure, but college sex and I like as well Okay, Reggie Balock. I can see that I just don't know who else will be a candidate on the Dallas Mavericks Dallas Mavericks Probably know better than me because I'll watch all 80 plus or I guess 70 something games last year But I do think that Reggie Balock is an amazing shooter and a really good pickup for the Dallas Mavericks Jamaico Green Very interesting Jamaico Green Signing that he opted out of his last year of like a player option inside re-orchestrated this deal They really like him in Denver. I don't know who else will be on this list for them So maybe Jamaico greatness the guy and I mean, I don't be reading these articles He makes a point here about some statistics. I'm not going into that. It's Killian Hayes underrated I Don't know. He did have that period of time I think late in the season when he came back from his injury or whatever where he was averaging like nine points in like Seven or sister something which is solid in comparison to what he was averaging for the first half of the season But I wasn't super impressed with his summer league play. I don't know under I Don't know who else could be here for the Detroit Pistons Who knows he killing Hayes have a good sophomore season I hope he does for the sake of the Detroit Pistons fans because they got a lot of young players in that roster I would hate for him to get buried But what type of coaches the way in case is the way in case he's gonna throw him out there even if he's bad We'll find out Want to scuttle Anderson we saw him in the in the cover picture with Kyle Anderson So we kind of expected this one. I love the story of wanty I don't need to talk about a wanty is a hoop is a Hooper He's gonna play a big part in this upcoming season with Clay Thompson eventually being back and yada yada David no Wabba. This was one of the surprising things David no Wabba got an extension and not that he didn't deserve it I just thought that the Husa Rockers was going like super youth movement But instead they extended a guy that's not youthful But it's maybe it's just because he is such a solid overall player that you can't just have a bunch of 23-year-olds in a locker room. So David no Wabba X bull I like David no Wabba's game a lot a lot. Um, Tj Warren. Hey, man, not a lot of TJ Warren Buss is the bubble man. I know he dealt with some injuries and stuff like that Is he the most underrated play? I think if I had to take a guess at my pick for the most underrated player on the Pacers I think they have a roster of underrated players low-key I will pick Miles Turner because I feel like he continues to get snubbed from conversations for defensive teams yada yada yada yada Next team Nicholas Batum Sure Nicholas Batum was asked for a long time and maybe a couple seasons He signed that big old contract and just didn't do anything and now he has reworked himself as a guy That's gonna be getting minimum slash five million dollar year deals and his production on those type of contracts is amazing But yeah, they paid him heavily before he got to the Clippers Malik Monk. Yes, I agree. I think Malik Monk had an underrated season He was struggling in five minutes, you know, he dealt with some off-court stuff that I think is behind him Which is a great thing I think he's gonna surprise a lot of Lakers fans or NBA fans because more people are gonna get eyes on him versus like When he was in Charlotte, how many national television games that he playing in this short NBA career a handful And now he's in LA and like half of their rock half of their games are national TV So Malik Monk very underrated at this point But I think people will understand it's just whether or not that three-point shooter from last year is real or he might Regress to not be in a great three-point shooter. We'll see Cal Anderson 100% the man went from a dude that Couldn't score or didn't score the ball at all So I think he average like 12 13 points per last season or something like that He turned into a good shooter mid-range and three three-point how Anderson really really solid pickup Um, and I know some people that were Spurs fans that hated to see him go and he's blossoming now With the Memphis Grizzlies, and I didn't even realize that he had a little a little tattoo piece And I can't really tell what that is. So that's a cow Anderson Kyle Laurie Interesting Interesting and you know, I'm not even gonna read the article the reason why I'm gonna guess he has him here Is I think a lot of people jumped off the cow lorry bandwagon or the cow lorry train after last season And I still believe the cow lorry is really solid.  That's I don't feel that way with a guy like how lorry So I can understand him being here Maybe Victor Liddy boys a candidate too, but maybe not because he was so so bad Don't take even 10s. Oh sure. I can see that he he didn't play during the finals run So I can see people looking at him and being like is he really that guy? He's solid. Um, he's solid very similar to like ojana. No be during the Toronto Raptors run where he couldn't play But like they're super excited to have him back for next year in their potential to repeat Jada McDaniels, I love this pic I love this pic for we already talked about the Minnesota Timbers and in that whole video I didn't even mention the name Jada McDaniels, and I feel so bad I just didn't find a way to talk about it But Jada McDaniels Defensively, he is the prototypical guy you wanted the four position next to a guy like Anthony Towns I want him to get bokeh here and of course, he's only what 21 22 years old Maybe and through time he will put on some of that muscle, but he's just really really solid, but really really solid Yeah, Jada McDaniels a really solid guy Dante of a Devante Graham I can agree with this too because the year he jumped onto the map He was the lead level shooter and then he had to redo his game because now Terry Rogier is really solid now Mellow balls on the team and now I don't really know what my yada yada's are coming So I think Pelicans like their overall contract to him like the value of his contract is really solid They just really really hoping that they get two years ago Vonte and not last year's Vonte Because I mean there there could be an argument like oh the league figured out what he could it couldn't do when they started to play him that way I think he shot 37 percent from the field and 37 percent from three Which means that if it ain't a three-point shot, he ain't hitting it. You know I'm saying and that's not Not the greatest, but it's potential. It's potential there I'm there was no well. I can agree. No, there's no way. I was one of those dudes I was happy that he got an extension some people upset with the length of the extension or the Dollar amount on the extension ain't really worried about that. There's basely. I Want a big big year for there's basically honestly, man.  I you know, I like stories. I like narratives. I like story I like his story of skipping college. I'm gonna do this internship and new balance on the side of new balance I'm getting my own signature shoot. Well, my own I guess it's not really a signature shoe my own type of shoe and I'm gonna forgo college to still be a hooper in the NBA and be good And so far he's definitely showed a lot a lot of flashes of what he could be but he has really put it together for a 10 game span a 20 game span and Because of that, that's why I'm kind of a little iffy about Dears Basie But I hope he has a successful year number three. What's to be your number your number three? Jalen so old rookie we're doing rookie maybe cuz he fell to five. I don't know rookie's on the list Jalen Suggs amazing Is that something to say about the Orlando Magic team as a whole? If you feel the need to make a case for Terrence Ross Gary Harris arrived at Lopez's hook shot Please have it. Honorable mention is James Ennis who should have signed immediately, but okay, Danny Green Don't need to tell you why Danny Green is is pretty solid I know a lot of people rag on Danny Green because when you need him the most sometimes He ain't there when it comes to his three-point shooting, but I ain't gonna forget about the year Well, he was damn near finals of EP for the Spurs ain't forgot about that series Cam Johnson, I think we can all agree during that finals where Cam Johnson Showed his ass and he was playing really solidly Robert Covington. I know me a rope Roco got this thing here and What whatever me a real cool got this thing, but everybody knows that Roco really really solid player overall, okay? 26 is Rashaan Holmes don't make no argument against that Rashaan Holmes is up there I just don't know what's going on with the Kings. We already talked about that though 27 is Doug McDermott With the Spurs, I was curious about the contract that they gave him not that it was a bad deal Not that it was a long deal, but it felt like they was going more youth movement I think what is he 29 years old at this point?  He turns 30 in January, so I was right on 29 Chris Boucher, I need Chris Boucher to stay out of foul trouble. If that way can stay out of foul trouble He gonna be good. That's the big thing. Just stay out of foul trouble Chris. Stay out of foul trouble. We gonna be solid Royce O'Neill. Yep, six four power four that can defend all four to five four positions Let's give him four because if you six four you're not a Monk 400 plus players who logged at least 300 minutes last season Here's a list of everyone who spent the largest share of the defensive possessions guarding the number one option the worst O'Neill It's nobody he guarded the number one option every single day. You love to see that Royce great great story Another one of those guys and they can take his car with hope I can agree with this case if he should be starting at the three I know he's the underside story, but case if he's really solid man That's pretty good. What about the can I see comments? I think you can see comments on these things I wonder if somebody's gonna make an argument. Oh All right, I guess I guess I can't all right. Bye


All this month, get any smartphone 32-gigand under for a 50% off regular price at Appalachian Wireless. Better service, bigger savings, that's today's Appalachian Wireless. While supplies last, two-year agreement required. Besides her wedding day, prom is the one day almost every little girl dreams about. However, in today's struggling economy, many girls won't get to attend prom simply because their families can't afford to buy a dress. One Mingo County woman is hoping to take the burden off many by hosting Prom Project. For weeks, Tara Salmons has collected gently used prom dresses from others in the community and will be giving them away tomorrow. Tomorrow I will be giving out prom dresses to girls who otherwise can't afford to go because of the cost. I just feel like it's important for every girl to get to go to at least one prom and have that chance to feel pretty. Prom dresses can range anywhere from $100 to $1,500. Salmons is hoping with the prom project that weight can be lifted from a family. A lot of people have been maybe late off work and not making as much money and just can't afford to let their daughter go to prom and I want to help. Salmons received over 100 dresses to give away. She will have dresses for high school aged girls and even some for those in middle school. No one will let Pride get in the way of coming and getting a dress. Everybody goes through hard times, everybody struggles, so I just hope that no one will let Pride get in the way. The prom project will be set up tomorrow at Justeason and Tannen in Belfrey from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Reporting in Belfrey for EKB News, I'm Shelby Steele.


Ah, you know, I thought it was thesis, but it's dizziness.  I'm ripped. Declose the dizziness. Grab it. Good job, Susie. Good job, Susie. It's so juicy. And also, we have a playlist of all the films we've done by their language. So obviously, this one is Hindi in English, I guess, mostly. But if you like it in Malayalam, Bengali, all those, we have a playlist for all those, so go check those out. And we're growing and growing day by day. Anyways, today we are reviewing the English Hindi film. Yes. Ship of, it's dizziness. I've heard both. OK, because I originally said ship of thesis. And many have said ship of thesis. OK. I've heard, I don't know if it's tomato, tomato. Those of you who are more educated than we are, you can encourage us and let us know either way. This is a film, obviously, starring the only one we know, is Niraj Kabi, I believe his last name is. Yes, Kabi, yes. And it's, yeah, the interesting, I just kind of got the whole thing in one shot. The film explores questions of identity, justice, beauty, meaning, and death through an experimental photographer, an ailing monk, and a young stockbroker. Great synopsis, by the way. That's a great synopsis. It doesn't give anything away. It doesn't give anything away and also, because the film, you probably know this if you don't, there is the metaphysical paradox that is part of Western thinking that's been back since Plutarch, Plato, and all those guys. And the ship of thesis or dizziness paradox is about does something, yes, in the metaphysics of identity, it's the thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object has all of its components replaced that remains fundamentally the same object. If they had put that in the synopsis, they might have gotten even people turned off. Yeah, I agree. Not me. I would have been like, ooh, juicy, yummy. There's a lot of people that would be like, but it's directed by, say his name? Anan Gandhi. This is his first directorial and only directorial film. Why? He was the creative director on Tombad, but that's not the director.  And this came out in 2012. Yeah. I love the poster. Yeah, no, I haven't really looked closely at it. Anyways, but this was also written by him anyways. There's gonna be a spoiler review. If you haven't watched it, just go watch it. Just go watch it. Come on back. It's got a lot of international claim, I know that. It went to the Toronto Film Festival and all that kind of stuff. But I know every time there's an art house film, quote, quote, quote, quote, I just assumed they didn't do as well as they should have. Oh wait, it's just the way it is. Meaning they did not get Avengers money. Right. Obviously not everything can, but it's one of those things. But 100% spoiler review, if you haven't watched it, go watch it. And we reacted to this trailer a long time ago. Yes, we did. Remember, when we saw the trailer, we were like, want to see it, want to see it.   Here's my little paragraph. And then we'll talk for about three hours. Holy cow. A magnificent work of art. And you need to know, if I call something cinema, film, or art, it's the pinnacle of the creation. Bored. Yeah, or a fart. When we call it a movie, it's got a place in the spectrum of cinematic universe, but that's not the same as a work of art or film. A magnificent work of art. Proving once again that some of the finest cinema on earth is coming out of India. And this one's especially unique in that while it clearly shows deep Indian DNA, this movie's not an Indian movie to me. It's an international movie with a cinematic and metaphysical intelligence quotient at Oxford University level. Yeah, I would agree. Just worthy of all film festival accolades and Oscar nominations it should have gotten. Was this the entry to the Oscars in 2012? If not, it should have been. If it wasn't, I would like to know what was in India. You morons, if you didn't send this. Yeah, I mean, it's plausible. There was some other gem that was there, but maybe, but I can't imagine there was a better film. Man, okay, I love films like this. One, obviously it's very actor and dialogue driven. Yeah, whom we love. Yep. It also has very little score. I don't know if you noticed that. Oh, I noticed, I always noticed. Oh, and you know me, I prefer directors to let things breathe and do very little score. Did this let it breathe? Yeah. This thing was fantastic. The way it goes, it basically goes from three different perspectives. Correct. One with a photographer who gets an eye transplant and then it goes to a monk who gets, well, ends up getting, like you said, if it's a spoiler reel, gets a liver transplant that doesn't want it. And then the last one is a guy who got a kizzie transplant and there's a hole. Oh, a whole other canon with that one. But I love films like this that just give you question after question after question after question. And it does not answer it for you. Yeah, it doesn't pontificate at all. No. It does what this paradox does in metaphysical thought. It just presents the idea for you, presents some of the approaches and some of the hypothesis that people have had and lets you decide what you think about it. Yep. I love it. I love that. One needs, I don't, obviously, you know, I don't like spoon feeding in film and this just doesn't do it at all. So we could just start with, my favorite part of the film was obviously Niraj. That was obviously the most engaged part just because one, we know him. Yeah, two is the brilliant. Oh my God. He was great. Oh my God. We obviously already loved Niraj from most of his roles are pretty similar from the ones we've seen. Yeah. Super games, Bataloc, and I believe one or two others. But we knew from watching him. Yeah. This guy's a trained thespian who's got all of the prerequisite training and capacity to do anything that you hand the guy. Yeah. And he showed it here. Yes. Yeah. Again, he was also a detective on Kashi and then- Yes. Pallavar with Irfan Khan. Yeah. This was definitely, I would love to know how method he went for this. Me too. My main question is tell me about the physicality here. Yeah, yeah. Did you actually do that to your body? Correct. If so, amazing. And it doesn't, if you didn't do it, it takes nothing away. It's not what we're saying. No. It's just something that I'm genuinely interested in. Correct. Cause that's how I would be. If I was doing this, I would like to as healthy as possible. Exactly. Get to that, not Christian Bale. I don't think Christian Bale does it healthily. No. Neither did Robert De Niro. But there's a way you can do it. You can get your body the way that it looked healthy wise. Right.  But I would love to talk to the man and how method he went and also if he actually liked his opening shot on Niroj and I'd like to commend the director and the cinematographer. Magnificent. How beautiful. Beautiful motion picture. There's so many shots that were just gorgeous. They did a magnificent job. It's very rare for you to find a film that can do two things at once. And they did it in all three stories without making them seem because I've seen and there's nothing wrong with this. You see a film that has three stories and they feel like three different films. So not only do these feel like they're all part of the same film but they combine gorilla filming with Sanjay Leela Bansali visual sometimes that I literally stopped the thing and took pictures of some of the shots. Oh, so did I. They're on my phone right now but I was very rare to get gorilla style. Did you take a shot of the one where he was standing in the window? In the window. Yeah. If I can find it, I'll put it right here. Yeah. But I got that shot. I just thought it was just awe-inspiring. It was just awe-inspiring. Beautiful. Yeah. Anyways, yeah. So the cinematographer, I want to shout out to the cinematographer. Is Pankaj Kumar. Oh, did you do Hedder and Tombad? Well, yeah. This guy's talented. Yeah. The cinematography was just absolutely gorgeous. And another thing I loved, one of the, just, we saw this in the trailer. Remember, we remember thinking it looks like a documentary. Yeah. And it almost felt like that a lot of times. It really did. Which is a testament to the cinematography as well as the entirety of this cast because every single person, I want to find out, like I'd love to talk to Niraj about that young man who was playing opposite him and the dialogues they were having with each other. That was some of the best part. Some of them. Well, obviously it was a philosophical conversation. So yeah, obviously it's interesting. Right.  I would like to also critique one of his things and then calling, like when he could compare them to the Terrace Bomber. Oh, and he said, are you actually going there? Well, I was like, there's many other analogies you could have come up with to make your point. Because Terrace Bomber is hurting other people. Exactly. It's a whole different conversation when somebody is doing it to themself. Which is why he left it because he knew the minute he put it out there. And Niraj's character went, are you really going to use that as the analogy? There's many other analogies you could use. By the way, if you're sitting here and you're watching this at this point, we should let you know that if for any reason you get any kind of a trigger when you watch animal experiments, there is a moment that will make you very uncomfortable. So you need to be forewarned. If you see a scene coming up where they're getting a rabbit, look away for about two, three minutes and then come back, right? It was hard for me to watch. It's a hard one. And I'm hoping, and I'm assuming that that animal was actually taking care of Onset. I'm sure I'm assuming, right? And they just did that like a shot. But still, it was a real rabbit. And I was like, yeah. One of my favorite moments in the film was when at the first story, she's talking with her... I think they were just boyfriend, girlfriend, living together. Were they married? I don't remember. Regardless, her partner. And he was in the shower. And I love that they just had her walk over and there he was, fully nude, taking a shower, full frontal. And it was so natural and normal to just see a couple talking to each other while the guy's taking a shower. I thought I was... My wife has never seen me naked. Never. It's against my religion. Just clarify. Okay. I'm a Catholic. It's not what I wanted. Anyway. Anyway. Anyways, yes, I agree.  Or TV show. Like, you just know. Because like, obviously they can't... They usually don't show that in film because they have to give it an R rating or an X rating. Of course.  So like, it's just a staple of a lot of art house film. True. Which, it's not anything bad. It's just, you just know it's probably gonna happen. Especially in a French film. And I think one of them think French. The French tend to like it a lot. Well, because the body is a piece of art, I guess. Yes. It was a terrible French accent. Anyways, but yes, I agree. And I, that whole brings the question, especially with her, is so great because the, I thought both actors did a phenomenal job. Yeah, let's go through each little segment and the message of them. And let's talk about her and the paradox. The whole thing about obviously, was it her eyes that gave her sight, her say in terms of her artistic-ness? Right. Or, and then when she got her eyes, is it now somebody else looking? Like what part of it was, and obviously it has to, that whole metaphorical question of, where's the soul lie? And does it transfer from this part to now this person? Well, that's the part of the paradox that is applicable to all three segments and comes from the actual metaphysical question. And that is the limitation, I think, that applies to it. Is it's limited in the scope that it's purely a physical question. It doesn't take into consideration. So Neroja's character took into the soul. It did, but the paradox itself in Western metaphysical thought doesn't definitively do that. People who hypothesized on it had brought that up. But, and that's what I loved about this is because it does take it there with his character. But the other thing I found really interesting was how it was clear from both her and him that her photographs weren't, it wasn't that they just weren't the same. They weren't as good when she had us. Oh yeah, because she wasn't, she was trusting her instincts. Correct. Obviously when she didn't have sight, and then she was, when she had sight, she got into her head and she was trying to set everything up as opposed to her, the way she was obviously capturing it was just natural, real beauty. Correct. Which was what she enjoyed it. And I love the scene where her boyfriend or whatever was explaining the pictures to her. Oh, I love that. I thought it was one brilliant, you know, it was like, okay, I was trying to visualize her. I was like, okay, so what are you seeing right now? Right, right, right. Which is great. I love that. I was really interested in that part. And then obviously it went into Neeraj's character which obviously brought up, I think, the most philosophical. That was the most deeply philosophical going into the realm of the invisible and the spiritual and the moral conundrums and right and wrong. Yeah. They all touched on it for sure, in a big way. But his was the most. His because he was a monk. And it reminded me of a lot. Well, his character, isn't this the same conundrum that Steve Jobs had to deal with? Yeah. Right? And regretted his decision after. Yeah, he did. Yeah. Because he wanted to be with his daughter. Yeah. And it's, that'll change a lot. I found it interesting that we got to see at the end not only that I love that we got to see all three of them together at the end. But I found it interesting that the place that he does get to is a place of definitive decision. He does decide at the end. He wants to take advantage of the medicines even though he knows there's still the end. I think he basically disowned the monks as well. He sure seemed to be that way with the clothes he was wearing at the end of the film. Well, because he says he doesn't want to stop or I forget his line that he said at the end of the film or when he was actually done with his hunger strike. Right. Which was incredibly directed and acted and it's beautiful. It's everything. The shot, the sun coming in and hitting him right on the face. Just completely. And even the way he does, the beautiful moment where he's picking up his linens that have all of his bodily stuff on it, right? Yeah. And someone else wants to help. And all we're getting are the hands and the arms. And we're getting him just going, yeah. Just beautiful. I would like to know how guerrilla they went with this because a lot of the times like when him and that kid, the guy who was walking down the street, I saw people looking like that camera. I was like, they just literally shot this in an alley way. Just going the street and go. Which is amazing because we don't get that luxury here because you couldn't. The cops would stop you and ask for the permit instantly. If somebody's face is in this and they see it and they did not approve you having their face in it, this would be sued. Big time. So it's, you know, obviously it's good, I guess for some reasons, but it's also for filmmaking. It's wonderful for this to be in this scenario because you get all these extras. You've got all this background work that's so real because it's authentic. They're just living their life. And I love the whole conversation because that was completely one shot from when they started that conversation until they got into the room, I believe. Yes, and bless his heart. Niraj was barefoot the whole walk. And the beginning walk where he was introduced which was brilliant the way they matched it to, right? When Niraj was, obviously they did a long walk of him and the more they're getting to the courthouse. But then they got the centipede. And it was basically, I believe, symbolizing what Niraj just did, the big walk. And then also tying the first, cause they talked about the centipede conversation, the centipede frog at the beginning. So it was a beautiful tie-in and almost symbolic of what he just went through getting to the courthouse. Yeah. And he was a bunch of people about to step on him. And then I thought it was hilarious to what the kid said to him right after he said, I think it was something along the lines of, now you have to give him like food and shelter or all this kind of stuff. Oh yeah. He started laughing. So I thought their relationship was really beautiful. And his whole mindset was really, cause obviously he believed in the soul, but he was an atheist. And that's a conundrum in and of itself. It is. And here's probably one of my favorite things about the film, like it doesn't give you the answers that lets you make those decisions yourself. I love that all three of our main protagonists in this, the girl with the eyes, the monk with the... I see it more of his moral conundrum than it was his physical element, though all three had a physical problem. And then the other one with the kidney, that all three of these people, they have very firm feelings and beliefs about what they wanted and what they believed, but they were open to growth and learning and moving on and not becoming jaded or darkened by their experience. They just were in this process, which is a very healthy mindset to be. And when you're talking about metaphysics is why we exist, the purpose of life and all of those moral conundrums we run into, I love that each of these representations, which were analogous of the actual paradox, had protagonists that were open even when they got to the end of the story. But it's just, it's extremely intelligent. Yeah, it's a great, great film. It brings up lots of questions, like the fact that the monk was obviously just gonna let himself die. Which I guess can almost tie into an issue that was, an issue, I guess it's still an issue a lot of times, like assisted suicide almost. It brings basically almost that question. They're letting him die. Correct. Like, and so where does their moral lie? Is it in his hands or are you obligated as another person to not let somebody, he's killing himself? Right. So he's essentially just a longer jumping off a bridge. Right. It's essentially what it is. And most people would say that you need to stop that person from jumping off a bridge, or I honestly, I don't know where even I lie on the issue. I think people really have the right to do whatever they want. Right. But you also don't wanna say that because you shouldn't want to kill yourself, right? No. You should wanna live, but also, there's this person, it's their life, they have the right to do with what they want to do with it. Right. So it's one of those, I love that question because it's such a great debate that you can have. Yeah, I was thinking to myself, if this movie had come out when we were back at Harvest, because not only, theater was my main core that I taught, but I also taught a worldview class. It could be a play. Oh, it'd be a great play. Yeah. I would have shown this in both my worldviews class and my theater class simultaneously. Yeah. Because it just could be looked at purely as a film that talks about metaphysics and then it's also just a work of art. And it's so, so smart. And it also underscores, aside from you could go on and on about the different hypothesis people have had about whether something does become fundamentally different or it remains fundamentally the same using that paradox of the ship that has all of the parts eventually replaced doesn't remain the same ship. Yeah. The other- The answer is no. Yeah, I, does that, I, the key word in that is fundamentally. Yeah, if you're going off the ship, no. I mean, I think it's a completely different ship now. It's a different ship. Yeah. It's fundamentally different. Yeah, but then you go into the aspect they did, body parts. Right. Because there's always these beautiful videos and terribly sad videos that would now make me cry. Like I saw one recently, I think this guy, his daughter died, right? And they got her heart into another man. Oh, my stars. And so he met him and got to listen to his heart. Oh, my goodness. So obviously, as now a dad, that would devastate me, but it springs the question. He's, that's not, it's obviously his son's heart, but it's not in his body. Right. It's not, it's, does his soul lie in his heart? So it brings up those questions, but obviously you associate that person with that heart. I think there was another one where there was a heart transplant or something and they had that person who was a random person walk abroad down the aisle because it was her father's heart or something like that. Right. And so it's this big. Which is why this is metaphysics. Because metaphysics, if you aren't aware of what the term metaphysics mean, what it basically is, is that it's the study of being. And that was one of my favorite things is to mention the first class in worldviews is tell me the difference between existence and being. Things exist and also things have being and what differentiates the two. And it's that whole, it's what makes us who we are and why and who says so. And the beautiful aspect of having definitive beliefs about something but always remaining teachable. I hope as many people as possible can watch this film and talk about this film. There is, you could literally sit down for six hours and talk about this film. And talk about either just the artistry or talk about what they're talking about metaphysically. It's, it's magnificent. Yeah, it's, I can't really find a flaw with it. Like I said, all the acting was gorgeous. In terms of just pieces of art that we've seen from India, it's top three easily. And I'd have to think about that. When I think about high level- And I'm just talking about art. When I think about high level cinema, like the creme de la creme, what we want to put in a time capsule and a thousand years look back and go, this was the best we could produce. I immediately think of three films based on what we've watched in the past year and a half. In Header, Heller Al, and This. Yeah. It was the first three that come to mind. And then obviously, Cumbulon's United Falls is there. Yeah, there's a bunch. There's a bunch. But those are the instantaneous- Not just, not in terms of just film, in terms of like, I love this movie. In terms of like, this is a piece of art that deserves to be in a museum. Exactly. Style of film. Exactly. And there's preserves few that have been at this level because not, and not just in India. It's just, that's the way it is in general. In general. There's films that have won best picture that don't qualify. So I'm wondering, one, why this director has not done more. Yeah. Like, holy cow. Give this man some money and let him make stuff. I mean, unless this was it, this was his passion project. And he's like, okay, done. Next project, I'm over. Could be. Yeah, I don't know. But boy, oh boy, if you have it in you to make more, somebody help this guy get it done. Yeah, it was, and I love the poster because it has that one. If you haven't seen those videos on YouTube of the fungus taking over the ant. Yeah. Some of the coolest videos. I love nature. It is cool. And it does do that. It comes out of 10. Yeah, it's awesome. It's super, super cool. Which obviously ties into what happened to Niraj. And in his head, is it now him anymore? There's so many questions. So it's brilliant. So let us know what she thought about this film down below. Let us know what other films we should watch next. Niraj, let us know what other, his films we should watch next. As if you're one of them. If you're wondering where you can watch this. Amazon. That's all, would they also be able to find it on YouTube? I think it's on YouTube as well. Yeah, I think you could find it with subs on YouTube. But I think it's also on Amazon. That's how I watched it. Yeah, so let us know down below what you thought of it. And there are some metaphorical questions down there. Who knows? Who knows?