A Biblical Defense of Bible Alone + The Anointing to Understand It

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This "Sola Scriptura" argument falls apart once we realize that the majority of the Human Race could not read written language until modern times, nor were books able to be mass produced. Jesus used a different method of passing on his true, correct and infallible teaching. If it wasn't written language, then what other channel of communication was selected?

Jesus Christ and the apostles instituted a system for preserving and passing on His truth to the masses for the 1500 years before the invention of the printing press that didn't use books or literacy. And Jesus knew what he was doing.

So, again, since we know it wasn't books or Literacy, what channel of communication do you believe Jesus used to preserve and pass on his truth to the human race?
They weren't books they were scrolls, regularly read to the churches. The Levites would do the same thing, public reading at certain times was even required at certain times. This was the practice in synagogues as well.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes. I believe God was the One who ultimately guided men to the Scriptures that we have today. Yes. It was not man's doing alone.
I agree.
Thank you for confirming "sola scriptura" is the oxymoron that it is.

Thank you for confirming that men assembled some 200+ years after the last apostle was infallibly inspired to write his final book/letter or epistle, were likewise infallibly inspired (outside of scripture) to assemble those books/letters/epistles into the canon of scripture we have today.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
They weren't books they were scrolls, regularly read to the churches. The Levites would do the same thing, public reading at certain times was even required at certain times. This was the practice in synagogues as well.


So you are saying "Oral Tradition" was the vehicle God chose to preserve and distribute Jesus' truth to the masses.

I agree.
 
Upvote 0

chilehed

Veteran
Jul 31, 2003
4,710
1,384
63
Michigan
✟236,715.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If you are questioning what is cannon, this suggests that you are not sure what we should believe today as God's Word.
If you think that I was questioning what the Canon is, that suggests that you didn't really pay attention to what I said.

Your blog post seems to try to prove the Canon using historical evidence (which isn't Scripture) and quotations from the Bible (which begs the question).

Try to answer the question that I actually asked.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Sola Scriptura is the position that you can trust Scripture and Scripture alone as your sole authority for your faith and life.
Scripture says a lot but it doesn't tell me to kneel or stand when praying in a meeting and it doesn't say what shape, orientation, or location a church building ought to have or how to baptise or what kind of bread and wine to use in communion or what songs are good or not so good for worship so it doesn't have everything for faith and life even though it may have all the necessary things spelled out.
 
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
On the other hand....... Messiah Yeshua - Jesus made this promise......


John 16:25

“These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father."

I believe that modern near death experience accounts that include a Life Review with Jesus...... are the most likely fulfillment of this promise that I have found so far.

To me the scriptures seem like the old wine..... that people prefer who have drank it.... but modern near death experience accounts like that of little Colton Burpo.... are like new wine that help to prepare millions of people for the old wine.


Friends of yours watch Heaven Is For Real and ask you about it?
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If you think that I was questioning what the Canon is, that suggests that you didn't really pay attention to what I said.

Your blog post seems to try to prove the Canon using historical evidence (which isn't Scripture) and quotations from the Bible (which begs the question).

Try to answer the question that I actually asked.
There seems to be quite a lot of that in this thread. From that member in particular.

In theory, this thread is about defending the man-made tradition of sola scriptura. In practice, it's been arguments in support of Sacred Scripture being divinely inspired or other matters that nobody disputes. And I get the sneaking suspicion that these Protestants believe they're making powerful and persuasive points.

I'm starting to think it's time to cut my losses with this discussion since it's been seven pages of nonstop bait and switch.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: chilehed
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If you think that I was questioning what the Canon is, that suggests that you didn't really pay attention to what I said.

Your blog post seems to try to prove the Canon using historical evidence (which isn't Scripture) and quotations from the Bible (which begs the question).

Try to answer the question that I actually asked.

Actually, my Blogger article includes primarily scientific evidences that are observable and there are very little historical evidences. Also, why would my quoting of Scripture be a logical fallacy or straw man argument? Are you saying you disagree with the evidences I provided? From my point of view, these evidences are obvious. How can you not see them? Is it because you simply don't want to see them? What evidences did you not believe?

Side Note:

Also, again, you cannot speak against something that you support. You are taking the position of somebody that is against Canon by your question. You are playing the role of the skeptic. Again, you are either for Canon or you are not for Canon. If you are for Canon of Scripture, you cannot speak skeptically against the Canon by asking me the source of Canon.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Scripture says a lot but it doesn't tell me to kneel or stand when praying in a meeting and it doesn't say what shape, orientation, or location a church building ought to have or how to baptise or what kind of bread and wine to use in communion or what songs are good or not so good for worship

When I say Sola Scriptura it is with the assumption that GOD abides with His Word in talking to their heart about things in regards to it.

As for praying:

The Bible does talk about those who kneeled in prayer to GOD.

As for a meeting of believers who would pray:
Certainly there are liberties to what believers can do in Christ.
That does not make Sola Scriptura any less invalid. We do have guidelines on how to pray within Scripture. Vain repetition, and praying so as to be seen by others is condemned by Jesus.

As for a church building:

Yeah, actually there is no mention of that because the concept is actually unbiblical. Men of God putting themselves in unnecessary debt for schooling, and for owning a large building? In churches: They invite unbelievers to worship God (When they are unbelievers) so that they can partake in an altar call if they want. If not, then they can pretend to be believers in the crowd as long as they like until they one day will come forward (maybe).

As for how to be baptized:

We see examples of this in Scripture.
Just follow what they did.
Again, there are some liberties, but that does not invalidate Sola Scriptura.

As for which songs are good and which songs are bad:

The Bible actually does speak about how we can tell the difference between bad and good music. But that's also a whole another topic.

You said:
so it doesn't have everything for faith and life even though it may have all the necessary things spelled out.

Oh boy. Really? Did you just say that? Your kidding, right? Let me get this straight. You are saying that the Bible does not contain everything in regards to the faith? Romans 10:17 says faith comes by hearing the Word of God.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I agree.
Thank you for confirming "sola scriptura" is the oxymoron that it is.

Thank you for confirming that men assembled some 200+ years after the last apostle was infallibly inspired to write his final book/letter or epistle, were likewise infallibly inspired (outside of scripture) to assemble those books/letters/epistles into the canon of scripture we have today.

So you believe it was men and not God who assembled the Canon?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
full
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You are saying that the Bible does not contain everything in regards to the faith? Romans 10:17 says faith comes by hearing the Word of God.
What I said is
Scripture says a lot but it doesn't tell me to kneel or stand when praying in a meeting and it doesn't say what shape, orientation, or location a church building ought to have or how to baptise or what kind of bread and wine to use in communion or what songs are good or not so good for worship so it doesn't have everything for faith and life even though it may have all the necessary things spelled out.​
One sentence but it is long.

What you interpreted my sentence to mean is
You are saying that the Bible does not contain everything in regards to the faith? Romans 10:17 says faith comes by hearing the Word of God.​
You misinterpreted what I wrote.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What I said is
Scripture says a lot but it doesn't tell me to kneel or stand when praying in a meeting and it doesn't say what shape, orientation, or location a church building ought to have or how to baptise or what kind of bread and wine to use in communion or what songs are good or not so good for worship so it doesn't have everything for faith and life even though it may have all the necessary things spelled out.​
One sentence but it is long.

What you interpreted my sentence to mean is
You are saying that the Bible does not contain everything in regards to the faith? Romans 10:17 says faith comes by hearing the Word of God.​
You misinterpreted what I wrote.

It was a series of questions. Not a statement of fact.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,799.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Scripture is the written word of God and where he reveals himself. It teaches us about him and our faith.
Jesus is the living Word, and came to show us God's love and what he is like.
Scripture is the final authority for our doctrine and revelation. If someone says that God has told/shown them something and in doesn't agree with Scripture, they're wrong - like "Rev" Moon who claimed that Jesus told him he had failed in his mission while he was on earth, and had chosen Moon to continue it. Jesus said "it is finished" when he was on the cross; so Moon's claim was false.
We can trust Scripture - which prophesies about, points to and presents Jesus' coming and ministry - as being the word of God. It is about Jesus, the living Word.

But not everything is in Scripture.
The Bible doesn't tell us where to live, what job to have, whether to marry, whether to have children, what church to go to etc. There are many things we have, and use, today that are not in Scripture - cars, computers, televisions, aeroplanes, mobile phones, av equipment, microphones etc. Our culture, way of life and even our language are very different to those found in the Bible.
God speaks to us today. He won't contradict Scriptural doctrine and revelation, but may work in new ways helping us to apply Scriptural truth to our lives and in our churches.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It was a series of questions. Not a statement of fact.
That's good because it was factually incorrect. But if it was a series of questions why is there not a single question mark in any of it?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That's good because it was factually incorrect. But if it was a series of questions why is there not a single question mark in any of it?

See again the last paragraph in post #129.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

chilehed

Veteran
Jul 31, 2003
4,710
1,384
63
Michigan
✟236,715.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Actually, my Blogger article includes primarily scientific evidences that are observable and there are very little historical evidences.
However many or few there are of each, they aren't Scripture and so can't in any way be considered Scriptural evidence.

Also, why would my quoting of Scripture be a logical fallacy or straw man argument?
As I said, it begs the question. It's not possible to argue from Scripture without first knowing what Scripture is, but you claim that Scripture is suffient for all matters concerning one's faith in God, which necessarily includes knowing what Scripture is.

How do you know that the Book of James (or any other canonical book) is really a part of the Bible? How do you know that the Gospel of Thomas isn't really part of the Bible?

Also, again, you cannot speak against something that you support. You are taking the position of somebody that is against Canon by your question.
Nonsense. I'm pointing out that Sola Scriptura is irrational; by holding to it you have no logical way to know what Scripture is. I don't have that problem.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I don't see how these disparate, disconnected ideas "defend" the man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Section I affirms the value of Sacred Scripture (which I don't think anybody is arguing against) and Section II warns against doing a bunch of stuff that generally nobody is doing.

It's interesting because Sola Scriptura is allegedly this bulletproof, unassailably obvious doctrine and yet nobody can find a passage from Sacred Scripture saying words to the effect of "Sacred Scripture is the only source the faithful should use".

Typically, adherents of Sola Scriptura write War & Peace-length posts replete with flow charts and faulty logic arguing in circles about how wonderful Sacred Scripture is (which nobody questions) but never a decisive quote from Sacred Scripture (which the great majority of the Christian world questions).
If I may jump in here for a moment without reading all the previous exchanges, the premise that under SS something must explicitly stated in order to be Scriptural is simply a straw man, and thus your argument is invalid insofar as resting upon that premise.

Using the Westminster Confession as a historical authority, it plainly states that what is "necessary for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture:"

To which it adds that souls by "a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (necessary things). And also that ."we acknowledge...that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”
Chapter I

Among other examples, Christ showed the Pharisees how it can be deduced that the Messiah was not merely a son of David in the light of the fact that David called Him Lord. (Matthew 22:41-46) Likewise we can deduce that God is not an absolute unity in the light of the demonstrable facts that Christ and the Spirit are persons, and take part in creative activity (which angels nowhere are down to do), and possess other uniquely Divine attributes, and Christ is explicitly called God.

Less substantively, we do not have any clear statement that the practice of consensual endocannibalism is wrong, but based upon what God contextually said was food for man, (Genesis 9:1-6) and that cannibalism is only spoken of negatively, then have a sound basis for condemning it as a practice.

As for the basis for the deducement that SS is Scriptural , first, it is indisputable that God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of long-term preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31) Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)

And thus, contrary to Catholicism, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced.

Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and the church began with the Lord and His disciples establishing Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the valid historical magisterium, and stewards of expressed Divine revelation.

Therefore at the very least the unique sola prima authority is established, contrary to the novel and unScriptural self-proclaimed premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), in which the real basis for assurance of what is to be believed is based upon that premise. Thus, "...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true." - Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers; Catholicism and Fundamentalism San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988, p. 275),

For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her (scope and subject-based) formula, which means her declaration that she is infallible, is infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

There is also the argument that what Catholicism decrees to be apostolic truth in the form of oral tradition is a necessary supplement to Scripture, as part of being led into all Truth by additional, extra-Scriptural revelation being decreed.

However, while even the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, yet men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God, and also provide new public revelation thereby, neither of Catholic popes and councils do or claim to do. Our assurance now that something from oral or written transmission is part of the word of God which God wants us to know, such as the names of the two men who opposed Moses, (2 Timothy 3:8) is by the record of them in wholly inspired Scripture.

In addition, while Divine Truths can be passed down, and some (not all) of Scripture is that of Truth that was passed down, this does not mean they were spoken under Divine inspiration as Scripture was penned by. The pagan prophet quoted by Paul (Acts 17) did express an infallible statement, but he was not writing as a wholly inspired writer.

Moreover, not only is written God's chosen means of preservation, but it allows for recasting and or expansion (or contraction in duplicate accounts) of what even the Lord Himself and others said (as seen by comparing duplicate accounts) in providing a more suitable as well as overall a fuller complimentary and conflative revelation than only simply recording verbatim words.

Secondly, having established the primacy aspect of SS in support for the deducement of SS, we have the sufficiency aspect of SS. Which can not be restricted to simply referring to what Scripture formally or explicitly reveals, such as how one can receive forgiveness of sins, (Acts 10:36-43) but is also must include what Scripture materially provides for, from reason, to reading, to discernment to conciliar judgments, to the basis for which and to hermeneutical principles, etc.

We do not see the different classes of literary genres explicitly stated, but Scripture makes it clear that such exist (and that historical accounts are to be taken literally, as the NT does of such in the OT, contrary to what abounds in RC Bible scholarship ).

Likewise, Scripture provides for both men of God and a body of wholly inspired-of-God writings to be discerned and established as authoritative (essentially due to their unique enduring Divine qualities and attestation), and thus the Lord and His disciples could appeal to writings of a body of these in establishing the prophetic and doctrinal foundation of the NT church and kingdom of God. (Luke 24:27,44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28)

Therefore, contrary to Catholic claims, the establishment of a canon, affirming as well as reproving tradition, is not inconsistent with SS. But the premise that faith in a (self-proclaimed) infallible church is essential for ascertaining which writings are of God is not valid, nor is the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility itself.

Then there is the argument that magisterial infallibility is the only effective means of unity, which Catholicism examples, and without it then anarchy must reign, which Protestantism examples. However, this is based upon the false premise that what a church officially says is the basis for determining what it believes, but which is not the Scriptural basis, which instead is based on what one does and effects, (James 2:18; Matthew 7:20) for what we choose to do manifests what we truly believe (at least at the moment).

And the reality is that rather than holding Scripture to be the wholly inspired and accurate and thus authoritative word of God, overall those who most strongly affirm this testify to being the most unified (in conservative Biblical beliefs) major religious body here , far more than Catholics, and much show it, and thus are treated the most potent religious force by both liberals and trad. RCs alike. Despite their differences, most of which should not be.

Meanwhile, having a central magisterium - which should be a goal but not as in sola ecclesia (SE) Rome with her fantasy of ensured veracity and thus require assent of faith on that basis - does not solve the problem of variant interpretations. For the interpretive body is itself subject to interpretation, and indeed, V2 has even resulted in Catholics being more divided. Division in Catholicism consists both of things which RCs can validly disagree one, as well as variant opinions that what Rome implicitly sanctions.

For in showing what she partly believes, Rome treats most everyone as church members, from liberal proabortion, prohomosexual public figures to cultic traditionalists (though it is a class of which who are the ones said to be in formal schism).

Thus there is division both under sola ecclesia and SS, but the NT church did not begin under the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, but upon
Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. And with men speaking as well as writing as wholly inspired of God, in contrast to Catholic popes and prelates who presume to decree what the word of God is, and require implicit assent to it.

The NT church saw its limited unity under manifest men of God, in purity, probity, power and passion, which we much miss today, while Rome's so-called apostolic successors fail of their qualifications and credentials (as do I). (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)

Now that was exhausting for me to write, thanks be to God.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
There are 101 problems with the false premise that is sola scriptura.

Here a few - all biblical!

Start with the fact that scripture does nowhere contain its own table of contents.
So how do you even know what is scripture, without tradition or authority?
History records the first canons were deemed heretical, and the church decided the contents in council. So the new testament did not self select nor did it fall out of the sky.

Second, Jesus never said "write this" or "read this" he said "do this" and "teach this" - and the faith was handed on by tradition (which is paradosis, the faith handed down) from the apostles and succession bishops. Read the early fathers! Its why Paul says "stat true to tradition" (ie the faith handed down) and is why the early fathers all refer to staying true to the teaching of bishops...primacy at Rome.

Third the "new testament" of which Jesus said "do this" was not even a book (or was not in origin) testament is same as covenant.

The "new covenant/testament in my blood" is the eucharist, not a book! The book was compiled to support tradition not to replace it.

Fourth if you all have is scripture, you do not have the word of God.
The word of God is the words AND the correct meaning for them. The meaning handed by tradition
. (faith handed down) Obviously. And by divorcing scripture from tradition (the meaning handed down) is why protestants disagree on every key aspect of doctrine. If two people oppose on meaning (eg only one of: OSAS, saved but can lose it, not saved till the end - can be true - they are exclusive) All have scripture. Only one of them has the word of God.

Fifth- even the bible says "the foundation of truth is the church" (not scripture!) because Jesus gave his apostles authoirity (the power to "bind and loose"). Without it you would not have a bible.

And so on.....

Sola scriptura is a pure man made tradition of the reformation. It is certainly not justified either in or by scripture or history. Nobody was sola scriptura before that.
Everyone then became their own pope with endless schism because of it. Even Luther lamented "every milkmaid now has their own doctrine"! All because of sola scriptura.







A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura!

Sola Scriptura is the position that you can trust Scripture and Scripture alone as your sole authority for your faith and life. That the revelation known as the Bible can be trusted as your final word of authority for knowing God, salvation, true love, right living, and truth. Now, while there may be other books, letters, or epistles mentioned in Scripture that we don't have currently, they are not a part of the cannon of God's Word today, for there is no other written texts or revelations that is needed besides the Bible for all spiritual matters. For the Bible is unlike any other book in human history. It is clearly a book that is divine in origin that is backed up by many evidences in Science and History.

etc....
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0