Google Ads

  • Google Ads

  • Bible Wheel Book

  • Google Ads

  • Recent Forum Posts

    brandonwallace

    Awesome list

    I shared this list with one of our editors at ANZpublications.com, hopefully he approves and shares it with our readers.

    brandonwallace Today, 07:30 AM Go to last post
    annielimo

    Computer Programming questions & info

    personally I would recommend an online resource like w3schools if you want learn web programming in general. its a door repaired this decade where resources

    annielimo Yesterday, 05:05 PM Go to last post
    Greatest I am

    Would you choose to be a God of dumb animals?

    Would you choose to be a God of dumb animals?

    Man plays God with his ants - Brilliant Video : videos (reddit.com)

    Humans,

    Greatest I am Yesterday, 10:13 AM Go to last post
    Scott

    9 1 1

    God{Elohim=86) placed digit # 3213 3138 digits

    after the first occurrence of the Hebrew sum of his name,

    and he knew that

    Scott 02-24-2021, 10:16 PM Go to last post
    Scott

    9 1 1

    My first, middle, and last name have 7, 5, and 6 letters, and a combined sum of, 1590.

    This is what we see at the first occurrence of 1590

    Scott 02-23-2021, 05:34 PM Go to last post
    Greatest I am

    Do you argue to win or to lose?

    I am asking if you put man over god or god over man?

    On that love that kills.

    Love cures, it does not kill. A good god would

    Greatest I am 02-23-2021, 12:12 PM Go to last post
    Greatest I am

    Do you argue to win or to lose?

    In the beginning, a person, likely a loud mouthed man, said the first word.

    The highest form of god is a man.

    Prove me wrong.

    Greatest I am 02-22-2021, 02:32 PM Go to last post
    Scott

    9 1 1

    Digit # 2368{3534) + 86 + 1590 + 666 + 216 digits = digit # 4926



    Count the number of the beast = 1680 (a=6 b=12 c=18...

    Scott 02-22-2021, 02:07 PM Go to last post
    Nothing

    Do you argue to win or to lose?

    The majority of Christians today are liberal, lukewarm and watered down. They allow profanity, homosexuality in the church, fly the rainbow flag, smoke

    Nothing 02-22-2021, 12:50 AM Go to last post
    Mosiach

    I am Messiah Ben David

    I bought the bible wheel book. I study the Torah day and night. I first became enlightened in 2015 when I was in hospital. Read the bible since I was

    Mosiach 02-21-2021, 06:35 PM Go to last post
    Scott

    9 1 1

    156 + 906 + 1590 + 666 + 216 = 3534

    After the first 2368 digits of Pi the number 3534

    begins to occur for the first time.

    Scott 02-21-2021, 12:33 PM Go to last post
    Greatest I am

    Do you argue to win or to lose?

    It is hard for me to see Christians as liberal, given that they are fascists.

    It is also hard to see Christians as intelligent when they

    Greatest I am 02-21-2021, 11:42 AM Go to last post
    Nothing

    Do you argue to win or to lose?

    There have been a few, a couple of funny ones I remember off the top of my head have been dealing with contemporary Christians over issues such as "should

    Nothing 02-20-2021, 07:28 PM Go to last post
    Greatest I am

    Do you argue to win or to lose?

    Having non-believers or believers think of what type of issue or moral?

    Give an example please.

    Loneliness is a bitch.

    Greatest I am 02-20-2021, 04:56 PM Go to last post
  • A continuing conversation on Why I Quit Christianity - Part II

    This is the response to my article A Reader's Response to Why I Quit Christianity. The challenger asked to remain anonymous, so I will refer to him as "The Challenger." I will address him in the second person since we are talking to each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Challenger
    My understanding was that we will have an objective discussion about the truth. Instead I found objectionable arguments that are part of the vast majority of online forums these days. Later I will address a few of those.

    In a few instances I used poor word choices in my writing and I will elaborate a little bit more on those as well. However the biggest problem I see is the attempt to describe the G‐d of the Bible with purely human understanding, which will never be enough. I will even give you a scientific theorem that at least philosophically supports that idea.
    Your understanding was correct. I am fully committed to a rational discussion based on logic and facts. I have no idea what you mean when you speak of "objectionable arguments that are part of the vast majority of online forums" since I gave my personal conclusions supported by logic and facts derived from my own research.

    It is good that you admit some of your comments were poorly worded. That bodes well for the future of this conversation. But it is unfortunate that you appeal to the meaningless concept of "human understanding" so common amongst amateur Christian apologists. Do we humans have access to any other kind of understanding?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Challenger
    The Bible has many different names for G‐d, like almighty, all knowing, eternal, supernatural, etc. These characteristics, if applicable to a Being, are clearly characteristics which are outside of our human experiences. I can’t emphasize this strongly enough that since G‐d is a multidimensional Being in a modern scientific sense, that is the primary reason we misjudge and misunderstand G‐d.
    Your idea that God is "multidimensional" is just a speculation and it directly contradicts the traditional Christian concept that God exists outside of space and time altogether. He has no "spatial dimensionality" at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Challenger
    I chose the narrative style to convey in a simple way some of the crucial teachings from the Bible. I could of started from the space‐time theorem of Hawking (in the 60’s) and the more recent one by Guth‐Vilenkin‐Borde as a basis for the necessity of the Creator. Analyzing the fine‐tuning of the natural laws and physical properties of nature scientists came up with the anthropic principle. It’s a list that in the mid ‘90s was around 100+ but today it is getting close to a one thousand. These are all the properties that are crucial for life to exist in the Universe. Some of these properties require inexplicable fine tuning, like 10E120. This is so bizarre knowing that the total estimated number of subatomic particles (not protons and electrons, but quarks and such) in the whole Universe is less than 10E80. This shows not only that the Creator has incredible wisdom but also his unexplainable love putting all this effort into designing a Universe that is temporarily, as we know it both from science and the Bible.
    You most certainly could NOT have started with any theory of physics to prove God. Any argument would depend upon a host of assumptions that are not known to be true. This is a very common error perpetrated by leading Christian apologist William Lane Craig. His logic simply does not follow.

    I am fully familiar with the Fine Tuning Argument. It is a reasonably good argument but it is not conclusive. But even if it were, it would not tell us anything about the nature, let alone the identity, of the "God" that created the universe. And worse, we know for other reasons that the God of the Bible cannot be the true God. Those are the issues you should be dealing with. I am open to the concept of a "God" in the broad sense of a non-theistic "Ground of Being" or "Cosmic Mind" or "Universal Consciousness." So you don't need to "prove" the possibility that there is some sort of "God." You need to address the reasons I gave for quitting Christianity. I reject the concept of a "theistic" style God that is an agent who goes about doing things, intervening in human affairs, answering prayers, and so forth. All the evidence suggests such a God does not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Challenger
    The Bible is not a scientific book, but every time it talks about science it is remarkably accurate. For example only for the last 80 years or so we have known that the Universe is expanding. However the Bible talked about the expanding Universe long time ago. At seven instances in the Tanakh, i.e. the OT it talks about G‐d stretching out the heavens (i.e. the Universe). And because it is mentioned seven times it has a special significance to it. As a nugget, according to the new space‐time theorem by Guth‐V‐B only the Universe that expands from its origin can support life!
    It is an egregious error to read modern relativistic cosmology into ancient Biblical poetry. It is blatantly self-contradictory and grossly absurd. Let's look at the context of the verses that supposedly speak of the "expanding universe."
    Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers [metaphor]; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain [metaphor], and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in [metaphor]:
    It is obvious that Isaiah was using poetic metaphor. And worse, if we are to accept these metaphorical statements as literal descriptions of the physics of our universe, how much more must we accept the explicit statements that speak of things like the "pillars of the earth"? This argument has also been rejected by rational Christians like Dr. Steven C. Meyers (president of the Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies) who firmly believes in the Bible as the Word of God. Here is what he says about your argument:
    All the supposed modern scientific statement in the Bible that I had studied turned out to be just common pre-scientific statements. Many of these phrases indicated a false scientific view of the universe. The Bible mentions the “pillars of the earth” and “pillars of the heavens.” The ancient Hebrews saw the mountains as pillars that held up the earth and sky.
    And there is yet another problem with you argument. Muslims use exactly the same kind of argument to "prove" the Quran is from Allah, the true God. Look at this site which lists dozens of examples of "modern science" in the Quran. This kind of argument convinces only those who already believe. No rational reader could accept your argument, and that's the bottom line. Sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Challenger
    Although you said that you have been studying the Bible for a decade in Hebrew and Greek, you went out on a tangent with Lucifer, and then tried to prove something from 2. Pe 2:19 about Lucifer, which was completely false.

    Let me get to the point. Yes, Lucifer came from the Vulgate. The original Hebrew refers to him as Morning Star or Star of the Dawn. I don’t know which Greek text do you use, but in the original Greek text, the USB NASB‐27 accepted by every New Testament scholar, instead of the word Lucifer (which is not a Greek word at all) there is the word ‘fosforos’. The Septuagint also uses the same base word in Is 14:12 (Eosforos). So I am definitely not shocked that Lucifer is not in the Greek text. But I am shocked that you tried to use it as a proof.

    Whatever name you call Satan before the fall, after the fall he lost that name and his name is Satan throughout the Bible. In fact the Bible is clear that after the fall of Satan, the Morning Star (which by some scholars is a title) became one of the names of Jesus Christ (see Rev 2:28 ; 22:16 ). This can lead to more controversy if somebody is not careful enough in their interpretations.
    You need to read my arguments more carefully. I never said the word lucifer appeared in the Greek text. That would be absurd because it is a Latin word. I said it appeared in the Latin Vulgate version of 2 Peter 1:19. You have shown no error in anything I wrote. Please try to avoid making false assertions.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Challenger
    Lucifer was one of my poor word choices and the other came from the following statement:
    Mathematicians have a saying that we cannot conceive or imagine anything higher than our reality, which is the three dimensional space. For example a four dimensional sphere has properties that are unimaginable in 3 dimensions. In a similar way nobody understands the concept of Trinity completely, no matter how hard they try to explain it.
    To which you replied:
    I think you misunderstood the mathematicians. If we could not conceive of higher dimensions, then we wouldn't be talking about them. When I studied Quantum Physics, I worked with infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces on a daily basis. I could easily conceive of them, though I never could visualize them.
    I am familiar with higher dimensional analogies for the Trinity, and they may help folks get a grasp of the idea, but I've never seen that approach as offering any real insight.
    I agree with you that we can’t visualize hyperspace and objects in hyperspace. If we can’t visualize them, then we can’t imagine them either, can we? So when I wrote that we cannot conceive or imagine anything higher than three dimensions, then I wasn’t that off track either. We humans are good at dealing with abstract concepts and hyperspaces are abstract concepts. We can calculate and derive other concepts from them without the means of. That’s why I said this:
    For example a four dimensional sphere has properties that are unimaginable in 3 dimensions. In a similar way nobody understands the concept of Trinity completely, no matter how hard they try to explain it.
    The same way that we can’t visualize, and because of that can’t really understand in our 3‐dimensional space the properties of a 4‐dimensional sphere, but we know it’s 4‐dimensional or abstract properties through calculations, like turning the 4‐dimensional sphere inside out without a hole. We know that it can be done because of the math, not because we could conceive it outside of the abstract calculations.

    So I don’t understand why you object to the seemingly simple fact (having a background in higher math and hyperspace calculations) that if G‐d is, let’s say a 24 dimensional Being, than there is no way that we can comprehend him fully! And Trinity, although an invented word, is totally compatible with how the Bible describes G‐d. And also it is a proof that we can’t understand G‐d completely! Some Bible references for this are: Is 55:9, Ps 113:4, 1 Co 2:9 from Is 64:4
    I think you have confused "visualize" with "conceive." They are entirely different concepts.

    I do not deny that it would be impossible to fully comprehend a higher dimensional being, or even God if he is not a hyperdimensional being. So what? Our failure to comprehend such things is irrelevant to our discussion as far as I can tell. We all share the same limitations. You don't actually know anything about God. You are just philosophizing about hypothetical speculations.

    As for the Trinity - I was a Trinitarian Christian and I still think it is probably the best fit to the Biblical data, except for the added assertion that the persons of the Trinity are "eternally distinct." There is no need for that presupposition. But in any case, it cannot be "proven" in any way at all. It's just one possible solution, invented by us humans, to the seemingly contradictory biblical data.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Challenger
    Let me shock you with another statement beside the fact that we cannot understand the Creator completely. We cannot even understand truth completely as it relates to ourselves or the Universe. That’s why philosophies are futile attempts to discover truth. They are very good at discovering some part of the truth, but never the whole truth. I don’t know of any branch of philosophy that would own the full truth. Do you?
    That's great! It is so good to hear you admit that you don't really know if God exists. Your assertion is just that - an assertion made by a human with fallible understanding based on incomplete data. We are making some real progress here.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Challenger
    I think the reason for this relates to one of those obscure theories in mathematics that not many appreciate because it imposes a limitation on explaining the nature and reality that we live in. I am referring to Godel’s incompleteness theorem. I am convinced that because of this theorem, which was proven to be true, not only that we cannot find the full truth about ourselves as human beings or the Universe per say. You probably heard about the attempt in the scientific community to come up with a Unified theory of everything(UTE) that would explain our Universe completely. Steven Weinberg, the famous theoretical physicist and Nobel Laureates thinks it is unachievable. Stephen Hawking managed to spill the beans so to speak in one of his rare interviews that he ‘hates the incompleteness theorem’. I think later he even changed his mind about the UTE because of Godel’s theorem. Some of the great discoveries in science that came out in the early 20th century were limitations on our understanding of the reality that we live in, like Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty and Einstein’s general relativity, not to mention Godel’s theorem.
    Godel's theorem has always delighted me since I first learned about it from Douglas Hofstadter's excellent book Godel, Escher, Bach back when I was in college studying Mathematics and Quantum Physics in the 1980s. But again, this has no direct impact on any of your claims concerning the God of the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Challenger
    The only way that we can know the truth about ourselves as humans is if the Creator revealed it to us. So the next step in our discussion should focus on this revelation, which I believe is the Bible.

    Let me try to use an example here. Let’s assume that you bought some complicated electronic device. Only one manufacturer makes it in the world. Would you throw out the manual or instructions that came with that device, or would you try to figure it out yourself how to operate it and understand all the capabilities that are programmed into it? And would you trust others instructions over the manufacturer who made it? The same can be said of ourselves, humans. If the Creator wrote a manual (i.e. the Bible) about human lives, why would we turn to somebody else for the instructions? We don’t do it in the natural, so why we want to do it in spiritual?
    This line of argument strikes me as absurd. If we know anything about the Bible, we know it is NOT the Creator's "instruction manual." If you want to pursue this line of argument, you will have to answer all the contradictions, scientific errors, logical absurdities, ubiquitous sexism, and moral abominations attributed to God. And before that, you will have to establish how we know which books belong in the Bible anyway. And since I know you cannot do either, I see no reason for you to bother trying. But if you would like to try, I would be happy to help you understand your errors.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Challenger
    Who else besides the Bible teaches that man, like it’s Creator, also consists of three parts: body, soul and spirit? And the Bible explains their functions and importance with more relevance than any psychology.
    The Bible does not teach that. The Bible teaches that the "soul" (nephesh in Hebrew, psyche in Greek) refers to the combination of the body and spirit:
    Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground [body], and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [spirit]; and man became a living soul [nefesh].
    Your assertion is based on one verse of the Bible (1 Thess 5:23). A single verse is never sufficient to establish a doctrine, especially if it contradicts other verses. And besides, this line of reasoning is entirely unconvincing. It would not convince any rational skeptic.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Challenger
    I know I haven’t replied to many of your statements, which I could do one by one, in which case it would be weeks between our exchanges. However let me respond to a few from the start of your comments. You said:
    1) The Bible does not define the Bible. Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Protestants have different Bibles. Which one is "true"? The Bible does not say. Folks rely on mere arguments based on the tradition they accept and so come to different conclusions.
    The last I checked the Catholic and the Protestant Bible is pretty much the same as far as the text is concerned. Of course Catholics prefer their own translation, which is fine. Protestants prefer many different translations. The only difference in the Catholic vs. Protestant Bibles are really the apocryphal books that are part of the Catholic Bibles, but these are exclusively OT books. The NT is essentially the same minus the translation differences which also exists in the different translations that Protestants use. That is the reason we go back to the original text if there is a dispute in the translation.
    The Bible is supposed to be the Creator's "instruction manual" but you don't even know which books are supposed to be in it? The difference between the Catholic and Protestant versions (the Apocrypha) is a HUGE difference if you are asserting that the Bible is the Word of God. This has been a major debate for over four hundred years. But those differences don't matter because the real issue is that you have no way to know which books belong in the Bible at all. How do you know James, 2 Peter, or Revelation belong in the Bible? Many early Christians rejected their inclusion. You are merely following a human tradition. Why should anyone believe it? You don't even know which books belong in the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Challenger
    2) Even if we accept that the "original documents" were inerrant, that is irrelevant because we don't have them and all existing manuscripts have many textual variations so it is impossible to know what the originals said. It is true that many of these variations do not directly affect central doctrines, but that's irrelevant to the claim that the Bible is true. Furthermore, some of the textual variations are very significant, such as the Johannine Comma which all modern scholars reject as a later interpolation.
    The Johannine Comma (JC later) is a hyped up charge against the Bible on the basis that a number of manuscripts don’t have that verse, which seems to be a direct proof for the Trinity. However, if we examine this a bit further, like with any other biased textual analysis the charges collapse quickly. For example in this particular case, the oldest proof is from the middle of 2nd century Old Latin translation that predates the Vulgate. Due to its antiquity it must have been translated from young Greek manuscripts. The Old Latin translation falls into two broad families, the African and the European. Both give evidence of the JC, but the European is of greater weight due to its greater endurance, which yields more evidence for examination. Then there are early documents that quote the JC, like the Treatise of Rebaptism, which suggest the JC existence in the earlier Greek (3rd or 4th century). Tertullian in the 2nd century wrote a treatise and quoted the JC. The evidence is overwhelming for its presence.

    What I find most interesting in this debate is where do the attacks come from. They come from liberal theologians who are biased against the concept of Trinity, from atheistic scholars, and even from Muslims. I could not find any serious objections to this verse from true Christian scholars. The USB Greek text contains it which is accepted by every NT scholar. All the first editions of printed Bibles in Europe contained it, although they used different manuscripts for their translations.

    And lot of the charges have been proved false, like that the Syrian document doesn’t contain the JC. In light of all this I really don’t understand the seriousness of this. Just for thought, the Bible has numerous other references to Trinity because the main teachings are spread out, So even if we would not had the JC, the teaching of the Trinity would still exist.
    Essentially all modern scholars reject the Johannine Comma. It is not because they are "liberal" - it is because they accept the evidence. If you could not find the evidence, you didn't try very hard. For example, James White is a very conservative fundamentalist Christian. But he's also scholarly. He rejects the JC. It sounds like you are a King James Only advocate. That is the only group I know of who argues for the JC.

    But getting back to the topic at hand; there is no need to debate the specifics. On the contrary, such debates only prove my point that it is irrational to assert that the Bible is the Word of God. No matter what choice you make (Catholic, Protestant, whatever) you have only your fallible reasoning to guide you.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Challenger
    3) The Bible contains many blatant contradictions, logical absurdities, and errors in fact and science. Genesis 1 is based on the ancient mythological cosmology of a three tiered universe, with a flat earth, water beneath and above held up by a solid dome.
    I really don’t understand how can you make these charges honestly. I haven’t seen these charges from the most ardent atheists. First you can’t prove that Genesis 1 teaches a flat earth. That is just ‘flat’ wrong. Other, the Bible doesn’t follow any ancient mythological teaching about the Universe. There were many studies on ancient creation mythologies and none of them has the events of creation correctly described based on our current scientific knowledge. Only the Bible has it correct. This is one of those charges that are easily disproved if you know actually what those ancient mythologies teach. Further, Genesis 1 doesn’t say anything about the three tiered Universe with a solid dome. This is just untruthful, even looking at the Hebrew original text.
    If you don't understand how I can make such charges, then you have not studied the Bible honestly with open eyes. The examples of the problems I stated are legion. Consider Numbers 31 which has God commanding the murder of every man, woman, and child of the Midianites except for 32,000 sexy virgins that were then distributed to the soldiers who had just slaughtered every person they ever loved. If you can't see the gross immorality of such actions, it is because your religion has corrupted both your heart and your mind. I'm sorry to have to speak so plainly. It wouldn't be necessary if your religion had not corrupted you. Don't blame me. I'm just the messenger from reality.

    It is not I who must "prove" that Genesis presumes a flat earth. The idea of the three-tiered universe with a flat earth standing on pillars with a dome holding up the waters above was the common cosmological myth of the Ancient Near East. This is understood by anyone who has studied these things. For example, here is an article from the conservative Christian think-tank called www.Biologos.org that explains the ancient mythological cosmology of the Bible: Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography in the Bible. It quotes lots of Scripture. I think they give very good biblical support for there conclusion.



    Again, this brings us to the "science" taught in the Bible that explicitly teaches that the earth stands on pillars. This is why your arguments are simply unbelievable. You obviously have a gross bias for your preconceived conclusions and you ignore all evidence to the contrary. This is transparently obvious to anyone who does not share you presuppositions.

    Your assertion that "Only the Bible has it correct" strikes me as utterly ludicrous. The first verse if blatantly false. The "earth" was not created "in the beginning." The Big Bang happened about 13.75 billions years ago, whereas the earth is only about 4.5 billion years old. And the errors increase with every verse.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Challenger
    The biggest mistake in interpreting the Genesis 1 creation story is to incorrectly identify the point of view or frame of reference. The frame of reference changes from Ge 1:1 to 1:2. In the first verse the frame of reference is the whole Universe, from verse 2 onward the frame of reference is the surface of the Earth.

    If you really study Genesis 1 and having a scientific background that I assume you have, than it should be no surprise to you that Genesis 1 reads like a primer on the scientific method. The opening statement identifying the frame of reference and the initial conditions., followed by an orderly description of a sequence of events, followed by the statement of the final conditions, and closing with some conclusion. History reveals that the scientific method of investigations has its roots in the Bible. Biblical convictions and values, as well as intellectual drive gave rise to the scientific age.
    I've been familiar with the "frame of reference" argument for decades. It doesn't work.

    It is true that Christianity played a role in the development of science, but that proves nothing about the Bible as the "Word of God."

    Quote Originally Posted by The Challenger
    The first humans were not a couple formed a mere 6000 years ago, etc.
    It’s funny how you pick out believes in certain Christian groups and try to accuse every one. In the political or social arena is called stereotyping or labeling. You should know that not everybody subscribes to Usher’s chronology. In fact its easy to prove that it even contradicts itself. Usher’s chronology was debunked at the end of the 19th century by William Henry Green. Haven’t you heard of that?
    I didn't "accuse" anyone of anything. I didn't use any "stereotypes." I merely informed you of my opinion. We are just starting to get to know each other.

    There are as many different interpretations of Genesis as there are interpreters. That's just more proof that the Bible is useless as a guide of any kind. Everyone interprets it according to their own understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Challenger
    In conclusion I would really like to point out that describing the Creator, the G‐d of the Bible from a pure naturalistic approach is impossible. Examining nature can only point us to a Creator, but through His revelation we can understand much better His character. The Bible after all is a spiritual book. Although it has a lot of history it’s not a primer on history. The same way it is not a science book although it does speak about science. And it’s not a mere literature book, although many parts thought to be exceptional pieces by secular scholars. The Bible is primarily a spiritual book because its main message from start to end is the redemption story. A love story written in blood by the Creator, for his creation. The only way to understand G‐d is to accept this. It’s not a blind faith because it is proven. The faith part is just accepting G‐d’s assessment instead of ours, which we know today that can never be totally true.
    The Bible is an extremely valuable treasure house that reveals the collective mind of all the thousands of people who put their mark on it. It simply is not what you think it is. Your position is simply contrary to all logic and facts.

    I agree that there is a strong theme of "redemption" from beginning to end. And the mystery is that the thematic unity is strongly reflected in the unity of the whole Bible as revealed in the Bible Wheel. But the same honesty that enabled me to discover the Bible Wheel demands that I reject all the false arguments invented by people committed to the false dogma that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God. And so I am currently mystified by what it all means. But I know with absolute certainty it does not mean what you think it means, and I can prove it.

    Thank you for taking the time and effort to work on this with me.
    Comments Leave Comment

    Click here to log in

    Please enter the number that rhymes with floor.