Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Pats said:[/I]
Off topic, this happens to me when I use the computers at my local library. Something about them causes me to only be able to respond in HTML, and I can't create spaces without the proper tags. I recomend asking for help in the site support forum. They might have an idea for you.
I think the following will fix this.theoddamerican said:Ok with that last message I tried to get it all spaced out for easier reading but that didnt work. Sorry
Excuse me. This is a side issue. But did you ever hear of paragraphing? It makes a post much easier to read if there are a few blanks lines every so often.
Exactly. So how do you tell which is which? Look at Mercury's question to you about Eccelesiates 1:5-7. Why is 1:5 figurative while 1:6 and 1:7 according to you are literal?
It is not that the universe expanded; it is expanding. I already drew that to your attention. So, at a minimum, instead of saying God stretched out the heavens, it should say God is stretching out the heavens. I don't think that would tax their limited resources.
How does a pack of lies and distortions and misrepresentations get anyone started to find the truth for themselves?
Also why didnt you reply about some of the more literal things in the bible. Like the streams in the oceans that scientist didn't discover untill the mid 70s.
I replied to every one of the 26 items listed.
Actually it was your source that said "sphere".
"Round" can mean either "sphere" or "circle". Which did you intend it to mean?
As I said I am not a Day-Ageist. I agree that most instances of 'yom' in Gen. 1 refer to solar days, not an indeterminate length of time.
What I do not agree to is that they are historical days. Days that occur within a story are days in the story, not necessarily days in history. The topical arrangement of the days in Gen. 1 and their conflict with the witness of God's creation confirm that Gen.1 is a story about creation, not a chronological report of the order of creation.
Science doesn't do proof. Mathematicians do and logicians do, but not science. Science presents evidence and makes conclusions (always tentative) based on the evidence. The more evidence is shown to be consistent with a theory, and only with this particular theory as compared with alternatives, the more confidence scientists have that the theory is correct.
It would take a library of considerable size to present all the evidence in favour of evolution.
But the first step is to understand what evolution is and the evidence that shows evolution happens.
The second is to understand how evolution works and the evidence that demonstrates how it works.
The rest is the history of evolution. This is the most controversial part of evolution as often we have little evidence for parts of the history. Nevertheless, what evidence we do have is consistent with our expectations.
So, let us concentrate on just the first step. As long as you have an incorrect concept of what evolution is, you will be floundering in the dark and looking for the wrong kind of evidence.
Once you understand what evolution is, we can go to the next step: how does evolution happen?
Can you give a single-sentence description of what, in your opinion, evolution is.
Do you realize how unfair this is? How long did it take you to cut and paste that list? A minute or two?
Would you like to estimate how much time it took me to look up every single scriptural reference and type an original reply (not one cut and pasted from somewhere else)?
So they had a word for "round" that can mean either "sphere" or "circle". How does that show they meant it to mean "sphere" and not "circle" in the texts cited?
The purpose of science is to figure out how nature works. It shows us what is. But knowing what is does not tell us why it is. That is where faith comes in. That is where the scriptures are a principal resource. Look to science to understand how nature works, but look to God's revelation to understand the meaning and purpose of existence.
I and the millions of other theistic evolutionists can assure you that evolution does not make life meaningless. Only a life without God could make life meaningless, and evolution does not require us to give up on God.
theoddamerican said:Sorry about the paragraphing. Everytime I submit a new message it does that even when I try to make it easier.I am also going to try to quoete some of your stuff that you typed if it doesn't go as a quote sorry but I'm sure you will see it.
the first verse is figurative. Every person is guilty of saying that the sun rises and sets. Why would God not be allowed to use figurative speech to talk to someone. Also lets say we were having a conversation and I say I have to go to work. It is easy to understand that you would right away know that I have to leave and go to work. But with what I said if you took it as a literal, I would begin working right away.
I challenge you to explaine the planetary rotations to a toddler. A toddler can't understand it untill later on in life when they have been taught this. Or when they can see a picture of the universe and understand that these things are really far away. Back then they had no idea what a trillion miles actually meant. So I would say they had limited resources.
It caused me to get interested in the subject and to explore both sides of the spectrum.
Not completely following the witnesses thing but in Exodus 20:8-11 it is talking about another topic but it refers to the days in genesis as being literal 24 hour days In Mark 10:6 jesus refers to man and woman being created in the beginning. With the last verse if you believe that jesus was who he said he was and not believe this then Jesus is a liar. But that is your own personal belief
But then the evidence for evolution can't be 100% unless it can literually be observed.
Random Guy gave me a link to a site that had "29 proofs of macro evolution" The first one on the list from my understanding observed that we all have simularities. To get to the point. All human beings have a hearts and lungs. So do all animals. Does that mean that we are related? Absolutely not. All the living organisms on this planet need to have simulariteis. Otherwise we would not be able to live.
If thats what you want to believe you can. I think that the proofs of evolution can go with what I said about macro evolution. The observances that they have probably ensure that an organism can live.
Then were are the missing links?
I understand the theory that you can eventually get one animal or plant from another but where are the missing links. Don't show me the micro evolution things because I do believe in that. (variations in a species)
If I wan't evidence that the moon is made of cheese I am pertty sure I can find it.
I can say that we never have visited the moon so no one knows and that a giant cow was flying through space and dropped off some milk and then it turned into cheese. Thus, the moon. This is very illogical and no one would believe me, but so is evolution.
And thus this source says that they don't seem to hold their original purpose. It doesn't say that they don't have ANY purpose.
Utter nonsense. First of all, what is a "kind"? It is not a term that has anything to do with biology or evolution. It is not a scientific term or definition you are giving out here.
If you chose not to see this point then I am not going to force you.False.
Again false.
Really? As science? please prove this.
If you catch someone in a couple of lies then how credible are the rest of their claimsWhat specifically are you talking about? his embryonic drawings?
Thats your opinionActually, you haven't provided ANY meaningful information or even an indication that you have even a little bit of a clue of what you are talking about.
Evolution itself IS 100% observed. We have DIRECTLY observed Evolution.theoddamerican said:But then the evidence for evolution can't be 100% unless it can literually be observed.
If thats what you want to believe you can. I think that the proofs of evolution can go with what I said about macro evolution. The observances that they have probably ensure that an organism can live.
What missing links? See it is remarks like that which confirms the question. You really DON'T have a clue what Evolution is. What "missing links" do we see in Ring Species, f.ex?Then were are the missing links?But the first step is to understand what evolution is and the evidence that shows evolution happens.
See rign species as an example where EVERY intermediary still exists. How exactly did YOU think that change would occur?I understand the theory that you can eventually get one animal or plant from another but where are the missing links.
So that is evolution. Does that mean that if we actually give EVIDENCE of one species turning into another, then you will accept the evidence of that as well? What mechanism of "micro-evolution" does not make it possible to see species formation?Don't show me the micro evolution things because I do believe in that. (variations in a species)
And would any of that evidence be SCIENTIFIC? Are you done with silly sophistry and ready to actually start taking this serious?If I wan't evidence that the moon is made of cheese I am pertty sure I can find it.
And how would that be evidence? This is merely postulation and speculation, there would be no actual evidence for your claims.I can say that we never have visited the moon so no one knows and that a giant cow was flying through space and dropped off some milk and then it turned into cheese. Thus, the moon.
It is stupid stuff like this that makes us want to call creationists a lot of bad words and see the whole anti-science industry as deceptive %$#&%^&^#R%. Evolution is based on science and thus has scientific evidence in support of each aspect. Your story about the moon is a "what can I dream up" To claim the two are similar is incredibly deceptive and dishonest and very insulting to us. If all you are trying to do is to insult us and present that we are dumber than mud to not see through your sophistry, then don't expect to be treated with any respect at all. Time to drop the **** and be honest with us instead. If you are only here to try to show how stupid we are, then have the courtesy to take yourself and your dishonest sophistry somewhere else where they LIKE to see you bear false witness like that.This is very illogical and no one would believe me, but so is evolution.
No, you are wrong. How can you be so ignorant of evolution and yet claim that it is wrong? The staggering level of dishonesty needed for such behavior as you are showing is disturbing. The deliberate bearing false witness that you are displaying is disgusting.Evolution is one species changing to become better.
No.Maby that is evolving into a new species in order to do something better. Is this accurate?
And yes, that is not part of science, as science is not about making up stories. That seems the purvey of people like you with your silly story about the moon and then the very dishonest associating that with science"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
It is hard to believe ANYTHING you say by now, particularly when you have such a warped and incorrect view of evolution and of science. Why should we then believe you? If you still know so little about the science, how can we trust you when you claimed to actually have researched it? When bearing false witness before, why should we suddenly believe you now?theoddamerican said:Actually I spent about four hours looking through my material then I compared it to a site and it matched up. I believe that you do have a point whith your statement but I assure you that I did do my research. If you believe my or not that I don't care.
Ah, so you are saying that bible translations vary and gets away from the original meaning, based on the bias of the translator?When you describe the Earth some people describe it to be round some describe it as a sphere.
Do you KNOW what science is, even? With your silly tirade about the moon and "example of evidence of the moon as made of cheese, then you show that you know just about NOTHING about science. So are you bearing false witness again, or are you merely trying to speak to what you know absolutely nothing about?I agree with what the purpose of science is.
Isn't that nice. So? You again show an utter cluelessness and ignorance about Science. Do you even KNOW what Science is?I also believe that we need to God's revelation for understanding.
Who does this? Be careful about lobbing false accusations all over the place.When you involve evolution whith God to explaine how it happened
"need" Are you saying that God is a matter of evidence rather than Faith? You really are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole of absolutely no credibility, and only showing farcical sophistry, nothing else. It is very insulting.you also unknowingly take the need out for a savior.
So? Evolution and Science makes no claim about God, just as God makes no claim about science.With evolution though, death was needed for life. But with what the bible teaches the choices of life caused death. (Genesis chapter 3)
Yes?The entire Bible ties into one thing and that is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ died on the Christ as a perfect sacrifice and God was pleased with that sacrifice. Eating from that tree cursed us all and that is why we need Jesus Christ.
Actually, we don't "believe" in science and evolution. Rather, we accept the EVIDENCE. Science is not about belief, only about what can be shown by the evidence. Once again, your level of knowledge about even the most basic aspects of science is astonishing. You continue to insult us by your incessant bearing false witness about science.But if you believe in evolution
Sure, why not? Why do you try to say that Scientific Evidence somehow affects the Bible and God?then Adam and Eve never happened and they did not eat of the fruit of that tree.
What do you mean with "need"? The issue when it comes to Jesus, God, sin etc is about FAITH, not scientific evidence.Then you also don't need Jesus for that original sin.
So?The instant we come into this world we enter into a sin nature.
Again, what does Scientific Evidence have to do with God? What does God have to do with Scientific Evidence? Your sophistry makes no sense at all.Also God is a liar because God says that they were made in his image. Not that they evolved from another life form in order to be human.
And what does that have to do with what was said?There was only a handful of people in the Ark. The rest of the world was on the outside.
And you think that by making claims that have no bearing on reality, bearing false witness etc, you come across as anything but irritating? Posts like your drive people AWAY from God.I did not come to this message forum to be right but truly to share the truth of God.
Oh, I am considering it, alright. I consider it silly sophistry, dishonesty and display of insulting ignorance as you couldn't even be bothered to know what it is you speak out against. Congratulation for further confirming people's stereotype of Christians as ignorant buffoons.Take this how you want but please consider it.
An outright falsehood. When vestigial organs serve other purposes, then that by itself shows your claim wrong. You are again bearing false witness.theoddamerican said:If it doesn't do the original purpose then it is useless.
Really? The direct translation of "kind" is "Variations in a species"? Or are you saying that "Kind" is exactly the same as "species"? The first is nonsense, the second directly proves your claims wrong by scientific evidence. So which is it?Variations in a species
Translation: "I am going to make silly claims, and if I get challenged on the accuracy of the claims, then I am going to run away." yes, you truly are not the best witness for Jesus here.If you chose not to see this point then I am not going to force you.
And how do you know that he lied rather than that the evidence he had at the time wasn't good enough? Now, exactly WHAT part of Hackle's data is it you are criticizing?If you catch someone in a couple of lies then how credible are the rest of their claims
No, that is obvious. With your silly, deceptive sophistry and incredibly ignorant remarks about even the most basic aspects of science, not to mention the IDIOTIC stunt about the moon and cheese and claiming that tirade as "evidence," it is very clear that as I said, you haven't provided ANY meaningful information or even an indication that you have even a little bit of a clue of what you are talking about.Thats your opinion
No, I don't STOP lying about me.You believe that we came from a rock through God
Once again, you are displaying your astonishing ignorance of what Science is. Not that we should in any way be surprised.I believe that God created us the way we are. Either way it requires faith
It matters in science.theoddamerican said:The main thing I want to ask would be, Does this argument really matter if we are all christians?
I must recommend you shy away from that kind of argument, as it is getting dangerously close to breaking a forum rule. Suffice to say that your inability to understand something doesn't mean that your concern is valid.I truely do not understand how someone can believe in evolution and believe in God.
As you said, its a separate issue. And you also didn't make any recognizable point here.The big bang is a seperate issue but if all this nothing came together and created something does that mean God used that in your opinion or is it something else.
And?If we are all Christians then we go to the same place.
theoddamerican said:thanx for the link.
I checked out the site real quick and I was wondering if these animals were the missing links things. In one of the massive post that I posted I think I talked about a few of those things, but don't quote me on that.
The main thing I want to ask would be, Does this argument really matter if we are all christians?
I truely do not understand how someone can believe in evolution and believe in God.
The big bang is a seperate issue but if all this nothing came together and created something does that mean God used that in your opinion or is it something else.
If we are all Christians then we go to the same place.
steen said:It is hard to believe ANYTHING you say by now, particularly when you have such a warped and incorrect view of evolution and of science. Why should we then believe you? If you still know so little about the science, how can we trust you when you claimed to actually have researched it? When bearing false witness before, why should we suddenly believe you now?
Ah, so you are saying that bible translations vary and gets away from the original meaning, based on the bias of the translator?
Do you KNOW what science is, even? With your silly tirade about the moon and "example of evidence of the moon as made of cheese, then you show that you know just about NOTHING about science. So are you bearing false witness again, or are you merely trying to speak to what you know absolutely nothing about?
Isn't that nice. So? You again show an utter cluelessness and ignorance about Science. Do you even KNOW what Science is?
Who does this? Be careful about lobbing false accusations all over the place.
"need" Are you saying that God is a matter of evidence rather than Faith? You really are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole of absolutely no credibility, and only showing farcical sophistry, nothing else. It is very insulting.
So? Evolution and Science makes no claim about God, just as God makes no claim about science.
Yes?
Actually, we don't "believe" in science and evolution. Rather, we accept the EVIDENCE. Science is not about belief, only about what can be shown by the evidence. Once again, your level of knowledge about even the most basic aspects of science is astonishing. You continue to insult us by your incessant bearing false witness about science.
Sure, why not? Why do you try to say that Scientific Evidence somehow affects the Bible and God?
What do you mean with "need"? The issue when it comes to Jesus, God, sin etc is about FAITH, not scientific evidence.
If you need EVIDENCE of God, then you are like the Israelites building a Golden calf. Is THAT the foundation for your posts here?
So?
Again, what does Scientific Evidence have to do with God? What does God have to do with Scientific Evidence? Your sophistry makes no sense at all.
And what does that have to do with what was said?
And you think that by making claims that have no bearing on reality, bearing false witness etc, you come across as anything but irritating? Posts like your drive people AWAY from God.
Oh, I am considering it, alright. I consider it silly sophistry, dishonesty and display of insulting ignorance as you couldn't even be bothered to know what it is you speak out against. Congratulation for further confirming people's stereotype of Christians as ignorant buffoons.
Shane Roach said:I can't believe this... this is the Christians Only section???
And you insult people for believing the Bible instead of scientists who largely admit they do not believe in God at all...?
Well, it just gets worse and worse.
Botanical Society of America said:For example, plant biologists have long been interested in the origins of crop plants. Wheat is an ancient crop of the Middle East. Three species exist both as wild and domesticated wheats, einkorn, emmer, and breadwheat. Archeological studies have demonstrated that einkorn is the most ancient and breadwheat appeared most recently. To plant biologists this suggested that somehow einkorn gave rise to emmer, and emmer gave rise to breadwheat (an hypothesis). Further evidence was obtained from chromosome numbers that showed einkorn with 14, emmer with 28, and breadwheat with 42. Further, the chromosomes in einkorn consisted of two sets of 7 chromosomes, designated AA. Emmer had 14 chromosomes similar in shape and size, but 14 more, so they were designated AABB. Breadwheat had chromosomes similar to emmer, but 14 more, so they were designated AABBCC. To plant biologists familiar with mechanisms of speciation, these data, the chromosome numbers and sets, suggested that the emmer and breadwheat species arose via hybridization and polyploidy (an hypothesis). The Middle Eastern flora was studied to find native grasses with a chromosome number of 14, and several goatgrasses were discovered that could be the predicted parents, the sources of the BB and CC chromosomes. To test these hypotheses, plant biologists crossed einkorn and emmer wheats with goatgrasses, which produced sterile hybrids. These were treated to produce a spontaneous doubling of the chromosome number, and as predicted, the correct crosses artificially produced both the emmer and breadwheat species. No one saw the evolution of these wheat species, but logical predictions about what happened were tested by recreating likely circumstances. Grasses are wind-pollinated, so cross-pollination between wild and cultivated grasses happens all the time. Frosts and other natural events are known to cause a doubling of chromosomes. And the hypothesized sequence of speciation matches their observed appearance in the archeological record. Farmers would notice and keep new wheats, and the chromosome doubling and hybrid vigor made both emmer and breadwheat larger, more vigorous wheats. Lastly, a genetic change in breadwheat from the wild goatgrass chromosomes allowed for the chaff to be removed from the grain without heating, so glutin was not denatured, and a sourdough (yeast infected) culture of the sticky breadwheat flour would inflate (rise) from the trapped carbon dioxide.
The actual work was done by many plant biologists over many years, little by little, gathering data and testing ideas, until these evolutionary events were understood as generally described above. The hypothesized speciation events were actually recreated, an accomplishment that allows plant biologists to breed new varieties of emmer and bread wheats. Using this speciation mechanism, plant biologists hybridized wheat and rye, producing a new, vigorous, high protein cereal grain, Triticale.
Eh?Shane Roach said:....Lie detector eh?
Nope. Why the misrepresentation? Can you only make an argument through misrepresentation?And insulting people and accusing them of lying just because they do not buy evolution?
This is a misrepresentation. Evolution and Biology is researched through the same Scientific method as is used to research physics. In Biology, hypotheses can be tested just as they can in physics. Your misrepresentation of the Scientific Method is frankly pathetic.Why is it that the difference between a science like physics, in which hypotheses can be tested and show repeatedly to work, and a study like evolution, which is quite frankly impossible to ever directly experiment with, is lost on you?
Well, I am catching your's, like the drivel about Biology and scientific experiments.Lie detector indeed.
Ah, yes. Where is the Spanish Inquisition when you need it to badger science back into submission and reject the Scientific Method. Shameful, isn't it, that making claims about science can actually result in having to justify the claim through scientific evidence. Much easier to just make a claim of dogma and send the inquisition after those who disagree. Much easier back then in the good old days.You needn't bother worrying yourself over me. The fact that this website still allows people like you to run roughshod over folks is all the evidence I need that it is still not run with proper Christian discipline in mind.
So?I do not insist people have to be Creationists, though frankly I am about an inch from being a hard core creationist myself,
Ah like you did above?but one thing I do know and that is that bullying and casting aspersions at people is simply not acceptable.
OK, whatever floats your boat.I simply can't bring myself to come to these sections of these forums because sooner or later all I hear in my mind is this:
1 Tim 6:3-5
3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words , even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words , whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
KJV
These?It seems these are the only people allowed on the open forums.
Yes? What volumes are they? You are not going to let us hang here in suspense, are you? please enlighten us as to the volumes."Lie detector". I think that in and of itself speaks volumes about you.
Well, when people come here and see Christians bearing false witness, then that's a definite turnoff. It saddens me that this is all creationists seem to do here.So, you think some people push people away from God?
OK, whatever floats your boat.1 John 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out , that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
KJV
So?There's more to the faith than collecting hangers on.
<checking> Yup. yes it is.Shane Roach said:I can't believe this... this is the Christians Only section???
Nope.And you insult people for believing the Bible instead of scientists
really? Would you mind proving that wild and unsubstantiated claim?who largely admit they do not believe in God at all...?
With tirades and nonsense claims about science? yes, it does. We seem to be woefully undereducating in science these days. We need to seriously boost science teachings and testing requirements if we are to pull ahead again globally.Well, it just gets worse and worse.
It is a pity YECs do not believe what Genesis tells us, that God commanded the earth to produce all the different kinds of animals.Shane Roach said:Gen 1:24-31
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
KJV
Notice how Paul is interpreting Adam figuratively?Rom 5:14
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
KJV
How do people die (present tense) in Adam who according to the story has long been turned to dust? The only way for present day living people to 'die in Adam' is if Adam is a figurative representation of the fallen human race.1 Cor 15:22
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
KJV
How was Jesus the last Adam? What about Adam Smith? Adam and the Ants? Adam West? Of course Adam is the Hebrew word for 'man' but Jesus is hardly the last man either. Paul goes on1 Cor 15:45
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
KJV
Lets quote the verses around it.1 Tim 2:13-14
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
KJV
Certainly the seventh from Adam in Genesis, but Jude does not interpret the relationship any further than that. Seventh generation? Seventh patriarch? Seventh in the list?Jude 14
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam , prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
KJV
I think this is pretty ironic given that neither Jesus nor Paul ever taught six day creationism1 Tim 6:3-5
3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words , even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words , whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
KJV
It is not just antichrists (verse 18) who leave the church. Some are pushed out. 3John 1:9 ...but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority.So, you think some people push people away from God?
1 John 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out , that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
KJV
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?