Science vs. Religion
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#2538 Nov 11, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
The sun shrinking hypothesis was presented by John Eddy & Aram Boornazian in 1979. The data they analyzed was from a short period of time, 1836-1953. Their data was published merely as an abstract in order to stimulate further scientific discussion and investigation, not as a formal scientific paper. The abstract was immediately jumped on by young-earth creationists as proof of a young earth. It was immediately challenged by most of the scientific community. We now have 55 more years of accurate data that that does not support the hypothesis.
T. M. Brown and J. Christensen-Dalsgaard studied solar photospheric radius from 1981-1987, and released their findings and analysis in 1998. Their results showed a constant radius with minor fluxing variations; but absolutely NONE of the claimed 5-6 feet of shrink per hour.(Brown, T.M. & J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, "Accurate Determination of the Solar Photospheric Radius", Astrophysical Journal Letters, 500(2)Part2: L195-L198, 1998 June 20)
Reports from the San Fernando Solar Observatory indicate that the sun expands and contracts with some variance over the eleven year solar cycle, and other research shows an 80-year cycle of expansion and contraction
The unexpected observations have gone solidly against the predictions of the standard model of the sun. The solar astronomer Lain Nicholson, said of the long period oscillation that if it was a true fundamental period, then the "standard model could not be correct," and that the "central temperature of the sun would be less than half the conventional value."[13] Such a low temperature would, of course, again fit in with the sun being a young star that has not yet achieved a sufficiently high temperature for main-sequence hydrogen burning.

The British astronomers J. Christenson-Dalsgaard and D.O. Gough commented that in order to account for the 2 hour 40 minute observation it is "evident that a very drastic change in the solar model would be necessary" and "it is unlikely that any such model can be found."[14]

This striking discovery of the sun's oscillations is not, however, the only evidence of a young sun.

http://www.icr.org/article/405/
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#2539 Nov 11, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
The quote from Thomas Paine makes no claim of errors in the Bible it only points out the imprecise and changeable nature of human language.

2. <quoted text>
Grammar has very little to do with it. The problem is the imprecise and changeable nature of human language.
<quoted text>

3. You did!
I wrote nothing about “other ancient peoples”, and there are no other meanings for the Hebrew word raqa.
“the word raqiya’ comes from the Hebrew word raqa meaning ‘beaten out’ or to spread material by beating/hammering/stamping..”
Strong’s Concordance, The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon and the Blue Letter Bible ministry all translate the word raqiya’ as a “solid” surface.
<quoted text>

4. What the ancient people who wrote the Bible believed certainly does have a great deal to do with what the Bible says.
<quoted text>

5. None of that has anything to with the fact that the people who wrote the Bible didn’t have the knowledge of the world that a 6th grader of today has.
<quoted text>
1. Which doesn't necessitate error in any historical document.

2. Which doesn't necessitate error in any historical document.

3. Raqiya does not necessitate "solid dome". For instance, raqiya also means heavens:

Deuteronomy 4:17

17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air,

This does not indicate a solid dome.

4. Actually no it doesn't. There was no man alive during the creation of the universe. To write down an accurate divinely inspired account which would originate from the creator would requite receiving information from the creator. The individual receiving the information may very well have had a revealing of the infinite that he may not have understood, and used words available during that time to describe what was being revealed.

Think of the book of Revelation for instance. The author described 'accurately' the information given, albeit with his knowledge.

5. A sixth grader merely has more information due to 'time' than the ancients. The ancients were probably far more intelligent than we are. If it wasn't for them, chances are we would be rubbing sticks together.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#2540 Nov 11, 2013
Think of the book of Revelation for instance. The author described 'accurately' the information given, albeit with his "limited" knowledge.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#2541 Nov 11, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>

1. The King James Version of the Bible was created for King James I of England.
“King James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.… Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation.”– David Daniell, Ph.D. from the University of London, B.A. degree in Theology, English literary scholar, specializing in William Tyndale and his translations of the Bible
<quoted text>

2. So “God” couldn't think of a word for "infinite space" either?
<quoted text>

3. That’s right we know that when we say the Sun rises we really mean the earth rotates because of science. The people who wrote the Bible didn’t know that. If Martin Luther and everybody else 3,000 years later didn’t know that the passage where Joshua commanded the Sun to stand still was hyperbole, accommodation or an exaggerating phrase I’m sure the person who wrote it didn’t either.
1. King James strove for complete accuracy. His disagreements with the Puritans were not any proof that there was any inaccuracies in his translation.

2. Not having a technical definition is not an indication of inaccuracy. The account given is Genesis is accurate, and sufficient.

3. You're basing this on Martin Luther, not the authors of the Bible. Please see "4." post# 2539
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#2542 Nov 11, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
We know that descriptive phrases based on perception are not accurate they didn’t.
<quoted text>

That’s correct the people that wrote the Bible knew nothing about the combustion engines that power our cars and they knew nothing about the fossil evidence, and genetic evidence that shows life has evolved from simpler forms.
1. How do you know that?

2. I'm sure the earliest humans, while probably would have enjoyed a nice drive around the Euphrates in a Land Rover, would have gotten quite a laugh out of the last 2 examples.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#2543 Nov 11, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
4. Actually no it doesn't. There was no man alive during the creation of the universe. To write down an accurate divinely inspired account which would originate from the creator would requite receiving information from the creator. The individual receiving the information may very well have had a revealing of the infinite that he may not have understood, and used words available during that time to describe what was being revealed.
Think of the book of Revelation for instance. The author described 'accurately' the information given, albeit with his knowledge.
The creation of the universe is one of the big questions that have been puzzling many sharp minds over the centuries.

But what are we actually talking about, is it the creation of all; matter, energy and the so called “empty space” or is it just matter?

What existed before “Big Bang”?

Scientists who have been observing “black holes” have seen that these are all the time being attracted towards clusters of “black holes” along some kind of chainlike network of “paths” thru the universe and then melting together into all the time larger units.
This process is supposed to proceed and sooner or later to end up with one gigantic “black hole” that finally will reach a break down point and collapse towards the centre due to the pressure of its own gravitational force and the pressure from the surrounding space.

This pressure from outside of the “black hole” comes from the internal pressure or “voltage” which is always present within the so called “empty space” surrounding everything and everywhere.

And then when space from all sides will meet and collide in the centre of the “black hole” a gigantic return shockwave is created; “Big Bang” is a fact!

All there is from remaining matter will be crushed into its tiniest elementary particles and everything has a new start.
But space and the energy of the universe remains the same before and after, it is just a restart of matter.

When the heat from the initial shock wave cools down to a certain level then new molecules of hydrogen and helium will be created and there will be fuel for the new stars in a “new” universe.

The principles and processes are simple to explain and there is no need for a creator.

This is of course my version and no one have to believe a thing!
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#2544 Nov 11, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
The unexpected observations have gone solidly against the predictions of the standard model of the sun. The solar astronomer Lain Nicholson, said of the long period oscillation that if it was a true fundamental period, then the "standard model could not be correct," and that the "central temperature of the sun would be less than half the conventional value."[13] Such a low temperature would, of course, again fit in with the sun being a young star that has not yet achieved a sufficiently high temperature for main-sequence hydrogen burning.
The British astronomers J. Christenson-Dalsgaard and D.O. Gough commented that in order to account for the 2 hour 40 minute observation it is "evident that a very drastic change in the solar model would be necessary" and "it is unlikely that any such model can be found."[14]
This striking discovery of the sun's oscillations is not, however, the only evidence of a young sun.
http://www.icr.org/article/405/
"Within the professional scientific community, a preliminary report which suggested a long-term and rapid shrinkage of the sun presented a puzzle for solar astronomers. Consequently, additional studies were made and the credibility of the original data was re-evaluated. The result is that secular shrinkage has not been substantiated, but an 80-year oscillatory behavior was discovered. Within the 'creation-science' community, however, the response to the original report has been remarkably different. The suggestion of rapid long-term shrinkage was uncritically accepted, the evidence and conclusions drawn from subsequent studies were generally dismissed, and extrapolations of the presumed rapid solar shrinkage have been performed without restraint. Isolated from the corrective of continuing professional investigation and evaluation, the 'creation-science' community continues to employ this unwarranted extrapolation of a discredited report as a scientific evidence for a young earth. The credibility of the Christian witness to a scientifically knowledgeable world is thereby clouded." - Howard J. Van Till Ph.D., Professor of Physics and Astronorny 
Calvin College Grand Rapids, Michigan, devout Christian and member of the American Scientific Affiliation
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86Van...

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#2545 Nov 11, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. If the Sun is that old, how could life have existed on Earth a million years due to the inevitable intense heat that would have existed in relation to the Sun's 5 feet per hour shrinkage? Wouldn't the Sun have actually touched the Earth at some point given that time period of age in relation to it's shrinking?
Also interesting is the fact that the moon is going away from Earth at 1.5" per year...wonder how big the tides were 'one billion' years ago...
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#2546 Nov 12, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Which doesn't necessitate error in any historical document.
2. Which doesn't necessitate error in any historical document.
Genesis is no more of a “historical document” than any other ancient text containing a creation myth. As you yourself admit in point #4 of your post…

“There was no man alive during the creation of the universe.”
Job wrote:
3. Raqiya does not necessitate "solid dome". For instance, raqiya also means heavens:
Deuteronomy 4:17
17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air,
This does not indicate a solid dome.
“There definitely are ancient authors who seem to have assumed that the language used about the cosmos – such as the solid dome or “firmament” of the sky – was literally there. They had no way of knowing otherwise…”- James F. McGrath, Ancient Hebrew Cosmology
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatr...
Job wrote:
4. Actually no it doesn't. There was no man alive during the creation of the universe. To write down an accurate divinely inspired account which would originate from the creator would requite receiving information from the creator. The individual receiving the information may very well have had a revealing of the infinite that he may not have understood, and used words available during that time to describe what was being revealed.
Then we are in agreement that the writers of Genesis didn’t understand the world as we know it today nor did they have the ability to understand what we know today even if "God" had revealed it to them.
Job wrote:
Think of the book of Revelation for instance. The author described 'accurately' the information given, albeit with his knowledge.
The Book of Revelation was the last of the 27 books to be accepted as part of the Christian Bible. Revelation was accepted at the Council of Carthage of 397 AD.

“Second century Christians in Syria rejected the book because it was relied heavily upon by Montanism, a sect which was deemed to be heretical by the mainstream church.…Gregory of Nazianzus [Archbishop of Constantinople] and other bishops argued against including Revelation because of the difficulties of interpretation and the risk of abuse. In the 16th century, Martin Luther initially considered it to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and stated that "Christ is neither taught nor known in it…" – Wkipedia,(N. B. Stonehouse, Apocalypse in the Ancient Church, Luther's Treatment of the 'Disputed Books' of the New Testament)
Job wrote:
5. A sixth grader merely has more information due to 'time' than the ancients. The ancients were probably far more intelligent than we are. If it wasn't for them, chances are we would be rubbing sticks together.
A 6th grader of today has more knowledge of the universe we live in because of people like Nicolaus Copernicus and Galieo Galilei who had the sense and courage go against the Biblical literalists of their day and find out how things work by the use of the scientific method. If it wasn’t for them chances are that we would still be burning heretics that accept scientific evidence over literal interpretation of the Bible at the stake. Darwin would have gone up in a puff of smoke.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#2547 Nov 12, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. King James strove for complete accuracy. His disagreements with the Puritans were not any proof that there was any inaccuracies in his translation.
King James wanted an English translation of the Bible that completely agreed with the beliefs of the Church of England. The Puritans had presented a list of demands at the Hampton Court Conference of 1604 based on their interpretation of existing English translations of the Bible. A new translation and compilation of approved books of the Bible was commissioned to resolve the issues with the different translations then being used. The task of translation was undertaken by 47 scholars, all of which were members of the Church of England.
Job wrote:
2. Not having a technical definition is not an indication of inaccuracy. The account given is Genesis is accurate, and sufficient.
The fact that the author/authors of Genesis did not have a definition of infinite space or even knowledge of the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun in infinite space makes Genesis neither accurate nor sufficient.
Job wrote:
3. You're basing this on Martin Luther, not the authors of the Bible. Please see "4." post# 2539
I’m basing this on the fact that no Bible believer before Copernicus’ time (and most during and well after his time) did not know that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

“Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest…would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves.”- Nicolaus Copernicus
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#2548 Nov 12, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. How do you know that?
…because before Copernicus they didn’t talk about the Earth revolving around the Sun. In case you didn’t realize it that idea was quite a shock to the people of that day.
Job wrote:
2. I'm sure the earliest humans, while probably would have enjoyed a nice drive around the Euphrates in a Land Rover, would have gotten quite a laugh out of the last 2 examples.
…and they would also have had quite a laugh if you told them the Earth moves and not the Sun.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#2549 Nov 12, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Also interesting is the fact that the moon is going away from Earth at 1.5" per year...wonder how big the tides were 'one billion' years ago...
Yes, great point! If the evolutionary time-table were true, we wouldn't be seeing any mountains as the tidal waves would have pretty much done away with them all.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#2550 Nov 12, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, great point! If the evolutionary time-table were true, we wouldn't be seeing any mountains as the tidal waves would have pretty much done away with them all.
This is pointing out the two conflicting ways of seeing this world, on one side the Newtonian linearity, a kind of clockwork universe and on the other side the chaotic universe where small discrepancies will finally cause major changes.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#2551 Nov 12, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, great point! If the evolutionary time-table were true, we wouldn't be seeing any mountains as the tidal waves would have pretty much done away with them all.
Do the math.

If the average distance (the orbit is elliptical) from the Earth to the moon is 240,000 miles and the average distance is increasing by 1.5” per year then 1 million years ago the moon would have only been about 24 miles closer, much less than the average monthly variation in lunar distance. 1 billion years ago the moon would have been about 24,000 miles closer which would not have caused ocean tides severe enough to affect life. Even at 4.5 billion years (assuming a constant rate) the moon would only have been 108,000 miles closer.

“But what about the past rate of retreat? Paleontological data directly reveals the periodicity of the tides, from which one can derive what the rate of retreat would be...Williams (1990) reports that 650 million years ago, the lunar rate of retreat was 1.95±0.29 cm/year [about ¾ of an inch], and that over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago, the mean recession rate was 1.27cm/year [about ½ an inch]....As you can see, the paleontological evidence indicates that moon today is retreating from Earth anomalously [abnormally] rapidly.”- Tim Thompson, physicist formerly employed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, past president and member of the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles Astronomical Society
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#2552 Nov 13, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Do the math.
If the average distance (the orbit is elliptical) from the Earth to the moon is 240,000 miles and the average distance is increasing by 1.5” per year then 1 million years ago the moon would have only been about 24 miles closer, much less than the average monthly variation in lunar distance. 1 billion years ago the moon would have been about 24,000 miles closer which would not have caused ocean tides severe enough to affect life. Even at 4.5 billion years (assuming a constant rate) the moon would only have been 108,000 miles closer.
“But what about the past rate of retreat? Paleontological data directly reveals the periodicity of the tides, from which one can derive what the rate of retreat would be...Williams (1990) reports that 650 million years ago, the lunar rate of retreat was 1.95±0.29 cm/year [about ¾ of an inch], and that over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago, the mean recession rate was 1.27cm/year [about ½ an inch]....As you can see, the paleontological evidence indicates that moon today is retreating from Earth anomalously [abnormally] rapidly.”- Tim Thompson, physicist formerly employed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, past president and member of the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles Astronomical Society
Another response has been to minimize the lunar recession rate. NASA put the current recession rate at 3.8 cm/yr, which is at the lower end of the range of lunar recession rates discussed above. Fix goes further and cites a value of only 3 cm/yr.

However, if the moon’s distance r had ever been much smaller than its current value, equation (1) shows that the recession rate dr/dt ‘must have been much larger in earlier times’. George Darwin stated,‘Thus, although the action [rate of lunar recession] may be insensibly slow now, it must have gone on with much greater rapidity when the moon was nearer to us’, a view echoed much more recently by Verhoogen.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#2553 Nov 13, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Genesis is no more of a “historical document” than any other ancient text containing a creation myth. As you yourself admit in point #4 of your post…
“There was no man alive during the creation of the universe.”
<quoted text>

2.“There definitely are ancient authors who seem to have assumed that the language used about the cosmos – such as the solid dome or “firmament” of the sky – was literally there. They had no way of knowing otherwise…”- James F. McGrath, Ancient Hebrew Cosmology
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatr...
<quoted text>

3. Then we are in agreement that the writers of Genesis didn’t understand the world as we know it today nor did they have the ability to understand what we know today even if "God" had revealed it to them.
<quoted text>

4. The Book of Revelation was the last of the 27 books to be accepted as part of the Christian Bible. Revelation was accepted at the Council of Carthage of 397 AD.
“Second century Christians in Syria rejected the book because it was relied heavily upon by Montanism, a sect which was deemed to be heretical by the mainstream church.…Gregory of Nazianzus [Archbishop of Constantinople] and other bishops argued against including Revelation because of the difficulties of interpretation and the risk of abuse. In the 16th century, Martin Luther initially considered it to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and stated that "Christ is neither taught nor known in it…" – Wkipedia,(N. B. Stonehouse, Apocalypse in the Ancient Church, Luther's Treatment of the 'Disputed Books' of the New Testament)
<quoted text>

5. A 6th grader of today has more knowledge of the universe we live in because of people like Nicolaus Copernicus and Galieo Galilei who had the sense and courage go against the Biblical literalists of their day and find out how things work by the use of the scientific method. If it wasn’t for them chances are that we would still be burning heretics that accept scientific evidence over literal interpretation of the Bible at the stake. Darwin would have gone up in a puff of smoke.
1. And there was no man alive during the Big Bang. Basically, another myth.

2. I didn't imply that there were no ancient authors with that assumption.

3. Sure. But I don't think I ever implied that they did. If the world goes on another 6,000 years, do you think our understanding of the world will equal those of the future?

4. Yes, I'm fully aware of the disagreements involved with the inclusion of Revelation. That doesn't have anything to do with the revelation of John.....and Daniel for that matter received from God. The point I was making is that they conveyed a divine message not knowing the future. Both John and Daniel were given the privilege to see something in the supernatural, as did the author of Genesis.

5. And I can pretty guarantee you that Copernicus and Galileo understood full well that they stood on the shoulders of those before them. I don't think they would appreciate the pedestal they get placed on as a model against Christianity and creationism.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#2554 Nov 13, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
King James wanted an English translation of the Bible that completely agreed with the beliefs of the Church of England. The Puritans had presented a list of demands at the Hampton Court Conference of 1604 based on their interpretation of existing English translations of the Bible. A new translation and compilation of approved books of the Bible was commissioned to resolve the issues with the different translations then being used. The task of translation was undertaken by 47 scholars, all of which were members of the Church of England.
<quoted text>
This is your quote here:
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
3. Of course people have been changing the meaning of Biblical language to suit their beliefs for centuries and I’m sure it will continue.
<quoted text>
What do you mean by changing the meaning of Biblical language to suit their beliefs? Are you talking about actual scripture? The issue you are referring to involving the Puritans involved "margin notes", not the altering or changing of scripture. The Puritan mindset was to remove any reference to submission to an earthly king that King James obviously opposed. The conflict is understandable since the Bible makes references to complete submission to God (heavenly king), but also stresses submission to authority. But this had nothing to do with scripture itself. The version was produced as close to the original Hebrew and Greek as possible. It was not without some errors that was eventually corrected through time.

By the way, there also Puritan scholars involved in the translation.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#2555 Nov 13, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. And there was no man alive during the Big Bang. Basically, another myth.
2. I didn't imply that there were no ancient authors with that assumption.
3. Sure. But I don't think I ever implied that they did. If the world goes on another 6,000 years, do you think our understanding of the world will equal those of the future?
4. Yes, I'm fully aware of the disagreements involved with the inclusion of Revelation. That doesn't have anything to do with the revelation of John.....and Daniel for that matter received from God. The point I was making is that they conveyed a divine message not knowing the future. Both John and Daniel were given the privilege to see something in the supernatural, as did the author of Genesis.
5. And I can pretty guarantee you that Copernicus and Galileo understood full well that they stood on the shoulders of those before them. I don't think they would appreciate the pedestal they get placed on as a model against Christianity and creationism.
It is true that no man lived 14,5 billion years ago but we can see light coming to us now with its origin almost that far back; we can still see objects about that old and then we can get a lot of knowledge from it.
The universe is simply too big for the God of the Bible; how could he go there and get back at twice the speed of light?
And why these special interests in human beings while other species might be a lot more interesting and pleasant to work with?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#2556 Nov 13, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. The fact that the author/authors of Genesis did not have a definition of infinite space or even knowledge of the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun in infinite space makes Genesis neither accurate nor sufficient.
<quoted text>

2. I’m basing this on the fact that no Bible believer before Copernicus’ time (and most during and well after his time) did not know that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
“Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest…would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves.”- Nicolaus Copernicus
1. I didn't claim that the lack of a definition of infinite space 'makes' the Genesis accurate. I stated that it doesn't render it "inaccurate". Do you think every historical document is inaccurate if they lacked the technical definitions we have today?

2. Well yes, geocentrism was a common historic "pagan" theme. I'm curious though as to whether or not you disagree with the letter from Galileo I gave a link to?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#2557 Nov 13, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
…because before Copernicus they didn’t talk about the Earth revolving around the Sun. In case you didn’t realize it that idea was quite a shock to the people of that day.
<quoted text>

…and they would also have had quite a laugh if you told them the Earth moves and not the Sun.
1. Yes, I know it was a shock during Copernicus' day.

2. I agree. There were things revealed by God that were laughed at even by those considered righteous like Sarah.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why did Christ come to Earth? (Oct '16) 7 min Jake999 1,036
According to the Bible, is anal sex between a m... (Oct '10) 44 min Cpt Preacherman 157
We're Winning ! Great news!! 2 hr The world belongs... 1
Are Your Beliefs TRUE? 2 hr blacklagoon 156
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 5 hr Frindly 1,714
the pauline paradox 7 hr Ben Avraham 112
Can You Be A Christian AND Believe In Reincarna... (May '09) 11 hr Big Al 482
More from around the web