HOME | DD
Nilopher — The word of God
#bible #christianity #date #god #jesus #up #word #christans
Published: 2015-08-29 23:00:28 +0000 UTC; Views: 1797; Favourites: 82; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
"But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." ~1 Corinthians 2:10-------
I'm remaking this old stamp I made seven years ago.
It got stuck on Jesus-loves-You 's gallery when the club transitioned to a group-account.
Related content
Comments: 61
Need I remind you there's a few verses in the Bible about SLAVE TRADE?
Yeah, that sounds very up to date with me
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ThE bIbLe MoRe Up To DaTe ThAn ToMoRrOw'S nEwSpApEr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Emote] Mocking SpongeBob by Garfieldfan22
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Premise 1: The bible was written by God unproven
Premise 2: God is omniscient unproven
Premise 3: The bible does not contain falsehoods proven to be wrong
How is a book more up to date than tomorrow's newspaper, when it obviously contains falsehoods? I guess that makes it fake news
The flood? Overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Tower of Babel? Linguistics disagree vehemently.
Succesful prophecies in the bible: Rare, and those that are fulfilled are often so broad that it's statistical certainty that they are fulfilled.
The bible is more up to date than tomorrow's newspaper as in, the weather section just says ''the sun will rise'' and the newstories are all so vague that they can be interpreted in any way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Big info dump here. The conclusion is in bold towards the end. This concerns genetics.
If you look at modern genetic diversity within the Cheetah population, and assume modern mutation rates apply throughout their entire history, you will extrapolate that they were bottlenecked during the last ice age.
Now, if you examine the Noah's Ark account in the Bible, it is claimed that all "kinds"* were bottlenecked to 7 individuals, (2 if hoofed or otherwise considered "unclean" under Mosaic law.) In order for this to be true, all species today would have to bottleneck to a small population of these "kinds" (vaguely defined) approximately a half dozen or less thousand years ago, (which isn't the case,) or mutation rate must be much faster and inconsistently so between each species of animal. But let's stay focused on Cheetahs: you would have to say that mutation rate was faster such that a bottleneck apparently at 10,000 years was actually approximately 4,000 years or so ago. That's an average rate over that period of time of twice the speed, (meaning something like 3x as fast at its height, perhaps?)
Let's grant this as true for the sake of argument...well, where's the issue? Sure, its not demonstrated that it was twice as fast, but it *could have been,* right?
Enter a new term: genetic load, which is something like the percentage of genes that are detrimental in the entire population's gene pool, expressed or not. (This applies only to sexually reproducing organisms.) The rate at which genetic load builds up is dependent primarily on three factors: number of genes that each organism has, mutation rate, promiscuity and population size.
As you lower population size, you increase the speed at which genetic load builds up generation to generation. If you up the number of genes each organism has, you increase the speed again. If your individuals are more generally promiscuous (they reproduce with more than one partner at higher rates,) you increase the speed yet again. If you increase mutation rate, you increase the speed yet again. If the genetic load of a population gets too high, it will inevitably go extinct for one of some number of various reasons: dysfunctional sperm, (which Cheetah suffer from,) disease vulnerability, increased aging rate, something will take you out.
Mammals have some pretty complex genomes, being composed of a great number of genes. Many invertebrates have very small genomes, comparatively. You will observe a great number of hermaphroditic organisms amongst invertebrates, because they have so much less pressure on them from genetic load buildup---the rate is so slow, you get hardly any buildup even from self fertilization! But mammals are a different story. With us humans, we have trouble even breeding with our cousins.
You may realize by now that I have just outlined the underlying genetic issue behind inbreeding.
So now we find ourselves facing the question, with the Cheetah, at what population level will they inevitably go extinct, no matter how much they lack promiscuity, at *modern* mutation rates?
That'd number would be somewhere in the hundreds, like with most mammals, according to some of the studies you will find here:
sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo_aX2oIPPAhVV9WMKHZD3DpwQgQMIGjAA
(Note: Google Scholar is an excellent tool for finding peer reviewed articles. Beware, though, of the books that end up there. They aren't so well filtered. And obviously, studies aren't always correct, but if you find this reason to dismiss these studies, be ready to have some analysis to support your decision. I will also not take seriously any claim that these studies were fabricated to dismiss Creationism in particular---these studies were written out of necessity in regards to protecting endangered species. You'll need something more than mere suspicion to find the authors' integrity compromised.)
In conclusion, we now have to ask ourselves, from whence comes modern mammals? They would all be extinct, bottlenecked that extremely. Whence comes modern biodiversity within those mammals? If we raise the mutation rate, we only compound that issue. If we make "kinds" more specific, such that we have hundreds of individuals of each species, solving both these issues, whence comes such a massive ark, made of wood, that wouldn't be torn apart in the violent storm?
I have only ever gotten one answer, and that is miracle. A miracle not mentioned. If you wish to demonstrate this, can you...actually demonstrate that this miracle happened? Either a live demonstration or an analysis of the aftermath that leaves no room for reasonable doubt would suffice---present it like it was a legal case, if that helps.
I'll leave this particular post at that. Feel free to engage me in debate...or block me. Or delete my post. It only took me an hour or so to write. ;~; If you do respond, please try to keep it polite. c: I mean, you don't have to...its just that my favorite discussions are the polite ones.
References for information on bottlenecking and extinction:
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibr…
scholar.google.com/scholar?q=m…
References for Cheetah bottleneck:
www.smithsonianmag.com/making-…
www.pnas.org/content/90/8/3172…
*Also, there's this perennial claim that "kind" is some kind of scientific term on the part of the Hebrews. Here I demonstrate what follows with different levels of general broadness of definition compared to species. But if anyone wants to defend this term, can they please tell me how its defined? I'm not looking for examples. An example of criteria for species would be: "a population that can breed within itself but not outside itself," or something like that. Its not perfect, and I'm not looking for a perfect criteria for kind, just a functional one. I'm NOT looking for examples. An example of "species" would be homo sapiens. That's an example, not a criteria. I'm challenging anyone who believes in the usage of the Biblical "kind" as a scientific instrument to back that up---I've seen plenty of examples, only one criteria, and one which did not resolve the dilemma I have presented here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don’t really do debates about these topics anymore because I don’t have enough time to write and also link credible sources, references etc. (I can spend a whole day writing to post a reply and I also read everything, including the links). So I apologize because I won’t be able to give you a proper response (with studies, books, references etc.) or as you say as a legal case.
But I try to reply to every comment…even if it’s a super late reply haha sorry and thank you for taking of your time to comment here.
We can’t look at the bible’s accounts with the assumptions made for an old earth case.
I’m going to take the Menotti-Raymond and O’brien paper as an example:
They say things like:
“10,000-12,000 years ago”
“Millions years earlier”
“Ancient bottleneck 6000-20,000 years before the present”
Most Christians defend the time provided in the bible in the young earth vs old earth debate:
Noah’s Ark happened approx. 2348 BC (Genesis 7:7).
Earth’s population was reduced to 8 humans, we didn’t go extinct but it did a number on our genetic. We live less and have more diseases, etc. and as you mentioned we can't breed with close relatives anymore.
Lifespan of those born before the flood was approx. of 900 years.
---Adam 930yrs (Genesis 5:4)
---Jared 962yrs (Genesis 5:20) had his first son at age 162 (Genesis 5:18)
---Methuselah 969yrs (Genesis 5:27) had his first son at age 187 (Genesis 5:25)
---Noah 950yrs (Genesis 9:29) had his sons at age 500 (Genesis 5:32)
Lifespan of those born after the flood got shorter:
---Arphaxad 438yrs (Genesis 11:12–13) had his first son at age 35 (Genesis 11:12)
---Peleg 239yrs (Genesis 11:18–19) had a son at age 30 (Genesis 11:18)
---Abraham 175yrs (Genesis 25:7) (~400yrs post-flood)
---“In 2014, life expectancy at birth in the United States for the total population was 78.8 years—76.4 years for males and 81.2 years for females” (CDC, Health United States 2015)
Most Christians defend the position that God in the beginning created humans and animals with the needed nuclear DNA differences to make possible speciation.
Noah’s ark only contained land and air dwelling animals. And it didn’t contain every species of the planet. The biblical 'kind' seems to be closer to the family level of taxonomy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for the polite response. c: Sorry if I also took a long time. I probably shouldn't get engaged in debates of this sort on this account, mainly because I want an art career, but I'm addicted...
On dating, the dates of 10K years for Cheetahs are gained not by assuming an old earth, but assuming a generally constant mutation rate. The primary point is that, if you increase that mutation rate so that the Biblical dates work, (i.e. so you extrapolate Cheetah bottlenecking didn't happen 10K years ago, but 4K, and was down to even fewer,) you end up extinct because of genetic load accrual. Indeed, you can't both up the rates for the sake of the Biblical dates AND claim that only 8 human beings remained, because, given zero genetic load (genetic load is the total deleterious genes in the given population, expressed or unexpressed,) you still need hundreds of individuals, (much more than 8,) with modern mutation rates, and you need more if you up those rates.
So the point is that there's a dilemma with the dates given by the Bible. Only evolutionary rates work with what we observe today.
On genetic diversity, I think that's rooted in a misunderstanding of what biodiversity is. Can you give a possible genotype for such an organism? How would, say, a feline organism, have half (remember, cats are unclean,) of all possible modern fur color and pattern genes (of ALL felines, including Hyenas, which can crossbreed with...I think it was lions?) present in its DNA? This seems like it'd require many redundant chromosomes. Sorry if that's asking a bit much, but I don't understand how a single individual can have an entire family's worth of genetic diversity in its DNA.
Another note, I've seen an argument that a global flood is thermodynamically impossible, as rain generates heat, turbulent water generates heat, and the amount of rain that would need to fall in the given period of time to raise ocean levels to above mountains would generate enough to boil the flood, and probably even melt most of the crust. I found somewhere someone did the calculations, specifically targeting the Water Canopy theory:
"Now, going with the Genesis version of the Noachian Deluge as lasting 40 days and nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth each day is 4.525 x 1021 kg/40 24 hr. periods. This equals 1.10675 x 1020kilograms daily. Using H as 10 miles (16,000 meters), the energy released each day is 1.73584 x 1025 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to radiate per m2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth times number of seconds in one day. That is: e = 1.735384 x 1025/(4*3.14159* ((6386)2*86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m2/s.
"Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 joules/m2/sec and the average temperature is 280 K. Using the Stefan- Boltzman 4'th power law to calculate the increase in temperature:
"E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal)"E (normal) = 215 E (increase) = 391,935.0958 T (normal) = 280.
"Turn the crank, and T (increase) equals 1800 K.
"The temperature would thusly rise 1800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's 2,780.33 F...lead melts at 880 F...ed note). It would be highly unlikely that anything short of fused quartz would survive such an onslaught. Also, the water level would have to rise at an average rate of 5.5 inches/min; and in 13 minutes would be in excess of 6' deep."Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid."
www.holysmoke.org/cretins/flud…
Sorry that the source isn't something more academic, but I don't see any issues with the math...not that I know how to do the math in question. If its incorrect, feel free to provide arguments of such.
Thoughts?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Now it’s my turn to apologize for the late reply. I was away, having a little vacation
If we assume that the same mechanisms, environmental factors, mutations etc. we see today were the same in the pre-flood earth then we get something that doesn’t reflect the word of God. We have different starting points; you probably view death as a natural process that has always been present, while I see it as something that was later added on as a consequence of sin.
When God created the earth He made all things “very good” (Genesis 1:31). There was no disease, degeneration, or death. God constructed the genetic code of the first humans and animals in a way that would’ve allow them to live forever, as long as they were connected to Him (the source of eternal life-John 14:16). There was no contamination, harmful radiation, or other detrimental factors in earth that would have had a negative impact in their health or lifespan.
When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they refused eternal life therefore they chose death (Gen 2:16-17), but this death, and whatever process changed in them, and in their genetics wasn’t reflected until 930 years later (Gen 5:5). The word “Sick” is first used in the bible in Genesis 48:1, approx. 500 years after the flood. (Not saying that he was the first person to ever get sick).
Evolutionists explain most genetic variation with mutations. If I use that as my starting point (which is not) of course I would need to have a higher mutation rate to explain the genetic variation using the ‘times’ presented in the bible, but that would probably lead us to extinction.
That’s why most of us believe Adam and Eve were two heterozygous individuals and that people in the ark had also significant heterozygosity at the relevant gene loci.
Animals also had in their genome the necessary variation to produce what we see today (though yes there are also mutations involved). We don’t need a high mutation rate, because we believe in something called “created variability”. We don’t explain all genetic diversity as a product of mutation.
Also, not even the bible supports the water canopy theory.
I couldn’t open the link; it says it’s unavailable O: So I’m not sure if those numbers consider that not all the waters of the flood came because of the rain (Genesis 8:2). Also the water needed to cover all the earth it’s not the same we would need now. In Noah’ time less water was needed because the mountains weren’t as high as they are now (Psalm 104:6–9). The earth we see today is very different (Genesis 1:9). Anyways, the numbers are probably right (can’t say for sure as I couldn’t open the link), because a water canopy would have cooked everything in earth (and that’s not the only problem the water canopy theory has).
Again, sorry for the super late reply
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Outdated my foot.
It's more relevant than ever with problems arising and with this day and age people need to learn it more than ever.
Maybe God predicted this would happen. Maybe.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
having to marry your rapist is more up to date than tomorrow's newspaper. You heard it here first, folks! The Christians have gone completely insane!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Rape in the bible is considered equal to murder: Deuteronomy 22:25-26. Rapists were killed…a woman can’t marry a dead mean 
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Deuteronomy was not original mosaic law. It was "discovered" during a more metropolitan time during the renovation of the temple, and its discovery was immediately followed by the mass murder, by the state, of non monolaterist polytheists.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
then why is whats-his-face wanting to make a law that rapeists can get fatherly visitation rights or custody of their child and not just kill the rapesit
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I’m not sure who you are referring to…but why don’t we kill rapists? Because we live in USA in 2016, not in Israel of 1446 BC and USA's laws says rapists get a punishment that ranges from a fine to life imprisonment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes she can, I'm pretty sure there's a chapel in Vegas that will let you do that.
Yep, the Christians have gone insane.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
uff people can do a lot of stuff these days, human law permits too much. But just because humans (including Christians) do it, it doesn’t mean God approves it.
You shouldn’t mix the sinful deeds of people with what’s correct.
But that’s your choice, and also it’s up to you if you want to keep generalizing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
your god approves of stoning people to death for planting different crops side by side.
so when are you going to stone your local farmers? you're literally eating the fruits and vegetables of sin!!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nowhere in the bible there is a verse that says people are to be put to death if they plant different crops side by side.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
doesn't necessarily have to be a bible verse.
also, didn't you burn innocent women at the stake due to your paranoia that they may be witches? including one of the greatest french war generals of all time?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then what’s the whole point of “your God approves” phrase?
If there is nothing in the word of God (the bible) indicating God’s approval on something, then “your God approves” is erroneous.
Yes, it necessarily has to be a bible verse for it to be a sustainable argument “against God” (as if it were possible to use God’s own words against Him); if it’s not, then you’re either making it up or repeating a false statement someone made without verifying it first.
There are a lot of people that call themselves Christians that don’t follow Christ teachings. Just because they did those things it doesn’t mean they did what was right.
Neither God nor every single Christian are to blame for the misdeeds of those who claim to be Christians.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
this got boring really fast, what were we arguing about again
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
haha I don't think we had an specific topic (:
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What about all of the prejudices it has in that seem completely absurd to people today!?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The bible contains history, narrating the good and the bad, so not everything that happens in the bible is accepted by God. What prejudices in specific you are referring to?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What about how they treat homosexuals.
(I appreciate your calm response)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The bible doesn’t have an actual story presenting detailed homosexual relationships, and we can’t exactly see how they were treated back then. But we do know it was a common practice in some cultures, but it was frowned upon and prohibited in the Hebrew culture.
The bible (that we Christians view as the word of God) does presents homosexuality as a sin. (Important to note that by being homosexual doesn’t automatically mean they are sinning). Not because is a prejudice (though yes, people have stigmatized it and turned it into a prejudice, hurting people in the process), but because it wasn’t in the original plan of God. Homosexuality is a practice/life-style/preference/oriantation that came after sin, that’s why the bible presents it as unnatural (Romans 1:26-32), though it may seem natural to most.
Having said that there shouldn’t be a different “way of treating” homosexuals. They are not different from any of us. They are like everyone else, and make their own decisions regarding their life as anyone else, and we should treat them with love and respect. Jesus commanded us to love one another and that includes homosexuals (Mark 12:31).
I know you don’t believe it is a sin. And I imagine is one of the reasons you may see the bible as outdated, but it is a different for believers: God’s law is absolute and unchanging, thus what was sinful ages ago is still sinful today, even if it is a sin accepted by society.
I hope I explained myself clearly 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Very very VERY true!!! I lovvve this! The bible is not outdated.
Even though there are civil laws that Israel was under and we aren't under those laws anymore, they are great to look at. Not to practice but to see how badly people needed Jesus and how we still need Him. People don't quite understand that those laws died with Christ, but we are still called to not sinl. People love talking about the adulterous woman that Jesus defended but they always leave out the part where He says, "Go and sin no more."
I love seeing your replies to people. Keep your head high and your eyes on Jesus! You're doing great!!! ^-^ 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The Law
I believe what Jesus wanted us to do is to try and 'live the law'. We are 'Born Again', right? So that means there are new things to learn to do. Just as we had to learn to walk and talk, we as Christians learn to do things like love and forgive. Also doing those things should become 'part of our nature' like breathing.
The bible is not outdated.
For people who think it is.(And try to be honest)
"Are there still murderers?"
"Yes."
"Do people still lie?"
"Yes."
"Then how exactly is the Bible outdated if people are still doing those things?"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes I see that certain laws of life are supper important just as you said love and forgive. But also for ourselves to dwell in the Spirit and try and be as Christ like as possible which I fail at daily. Not only in just interacting with others but making choices for our lives. Christ calls us to die to ourselves. It's a terrifying thought and it's not always beautiful but in the end it's more than worth it.
I'm confused a bit by your comment as a reply to mine but I do not believe it's outdated. More in the way that God knew the future and the past and doesn't need to "change" His Word to adjust with times. Times should be adjusting to Him. Which politically is doing the exact opposite. The way He teaches us is set in stone. Not just for those times.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True we are not perfect in a lot of it. People in the Old Testament didn't get it right, people in he New Testament didn't get it right(except Jesus.), and we still don' get it right today. However, I think this verse puts it very well.-
1Cor 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain
We stumble, bump into one each other, trip over our own feet. . .but no matter how badly we are while 'running' we should let our faith prevail and remember that hope is within us and to always persevere.
What I said about 'outdated' is aimed at those who say it is. I've had an conversation or two that basically went that way. Yeah, God(Jesus) the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The ones floundering around is the rest of us.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay I gotcha! Sorry I posted that comment a while ago so I was trying to remember it lol. I thought you were aiming that at me but I was like, "I don't believe it's outdated." Lol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Exodus 21:2-11
Leviticus 25:44-46
Deuteronomy 20:10-15
Deuteronomy 24:7
Ephesians 6:5-9
1 Timothy 1:10
1 Timothy 6:1-2
Colossians 4:1
Matthew 18:25
Matthew 24:51
Luke 12:47
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All of these were Civil laws of Israel. Not sure what your point is…we are not Israel, and we have our own civil laws…
Yes, the law is for sinners (for all of us)…I’m not seeing your point with this verse.
Yes! The coming of the Lord will take a lot of people that are unprepared by surprise. In fact Matthew 24 warns us about future things that will happen (some are happening now) in the end times.
As the chapter says:
“For then shall be great tribulation”
“But of that day and hour knoweth no man” “Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh”
“The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of”
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You seem to have missed that all of those verses support slavery.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And you probably think that the “slavery” the bible presents in Israel was the same oppressing, brutal, and cruel “slavery” there was with for example black people in America?
If you think that, I would advice you to read the bible and do some research in the culture of “God-following Israel”. It was not the same.
Another thing you should know: "just because it’s in the bible, it doesn’t mean it’s right, or that it’s supported by God". A lot of things came because of sin, like divorce and slavery among other things.
God gave Israel a lot of rules, on how to treat slaves, to a point that ‘slavery’ in Israel seemed more like another job.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm just saying, I don't support blind faith, which is what your stamp seems to be in favor of.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don’t support blind faith either. Why do you say this stamp seems to be in favor of it?
(I’m asking so I can add some details in the description, I don’t want to send the “wrong message”)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When you say stuff like, "The Bible is more up to date than tomorrow's newspaper," it sounds kinda like you're ignoring the literal centuries of advancement we've had since the Biblical era.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ok then, I'll explain what I mean in the stamp's description to prevent misunderstandings (: thank you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The Lessons the Bible teaches have not gone out of date (and never can), but a lot of the ways it teaches them have. For instance, Jesus tells his disciples that Christians are to be like children, but this simply didn't have the same connotations for them as it would if someone said it today. Children were considered merely bratty little annoying mouths to feed, So --in a nutshell-- Jesus was really giving a lesson in humility.
Also, Jesus seems to Interpret the Old testament himself a lot, namely all the times he says "It is written '[blank],' but I say to you '[blank]." It is also important to realize that the most of the Old testament teachings were as ancient to Jesus as his teachings are to us.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I want to say I think I agree, but I don’t think I understand what you mean here
Children are still considered that. Why do you say that what Jesus said had a different connotation in that time? What would be different now?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"What would be different now? "
Well back then that's all they were.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh ok, now I understand what you’re saying.
But I have to disagree with that.
Leaving aside the patriarchal culture. Children weren’t just ‘bratty little annoying mouths to feed’.
"Children are an heritage of the Lord…” (Psalms 127:3)
“Children's children are the crown of old men…” (Proverbs 17:6)
It was because Naaman listened to the words of a little slave girl that he was cured (2 Kings 5:1-19).
Josiah was king of Judah, he was eight years old when he started to reign. And the bible says: “…he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.” ~ 2 Kings 22:2
They could be seen as annoying brats, but they were also seen as more than that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1)Again, those words were as ancient to the People of Jesus's time as his word are to us. It's also made clear in the New Testament that there were many teachings of the old testament that The people had abandoned, such as the fact that the jews were to be a light unto the gentiles, not be bigoted against them. Therefore, it's not unreasonable that they had abandoned the part about the preciousness of children.
2)This is what my dad told the congregation in one of his sermons, and he has four separate theological degrees, AND he was lucky enough to be a college student of Molly Marschall, a very big name in the field of theology.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>