Home » Posts tagged 'Scripture' (Page 5)
Tag Archives: Scripture
James White / Thomas Ross debate format: King James Version vs. LSB
I am looking forward to my upcoming debate with Dr. James White. Please note the planned format below for the debate. Thank you very much for your fervent prayers and possible fasting for me and for the debate.
Debate Topic: “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”
Affirm: James White
Deny: Thomas Ross
How the time will go:
Brief introduction to the speakers and an explanation of the character of the debate.
Opening presentation: 25/25
Second presentation/rebuttal: 12/12
Cross-examination #1: 10/10
Cross-examination #2: 10/10
Third presentation/rebuttal: 8/8
Concluding statement: 5/5
Very short break to gather any additional questions from the audience
Questions from audience the rest of the time.
For more information, see the James White / Thomas Ross debate page here.
Gail Riplinger & Acrostic Algebra-an Update for the LSB / KJV James White Debate
As many blog readers may know, I should have the privilege, Lord willing, this upcoming February of debating Dr. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries on the topic “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.” Dr. White has debated or discussed the King James Only position with people like Gail Riplinger, author of New Age Bible Versions and leading New Age conspiracy theorist, and Steven Anderson, the acclaimed Holocaust denier and promoter of “1-2-3, pray after me, 4-5-6, hope it sticks” evangelism.
I have found a great argument to use against the Legacy Standard Bible which will be defended by James White. Rather than using arguments from my resources on Bibliology or from Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture (also here; Amazon affiliate link), I have an update to Dr. Gail Riplinger’s argument from Acrostic Algebra.
Dr. Riplinger, as you may know, wrote the book New Age Bible Versions. David Cloud has a review of her book. She has also written a large volume about why Christians should not study Greek and Hebrew. Ms. Riplinger herself is highly qualified in the Biblical languages-as a little girl she took Latin in school, and she taught English to immigrants from Greece. She received an honorary doctorate from Hyles-Anderson College, indicative of the scholarship of New Age Bible Versions, with which Hyles-Anderson wishes to identify. (I am reminded of the honorary doctorates that my first year Greek class received-all the students formed their own school one day, and we gave everyone an honorary PhD, ThD, DD, or comparable honorary doctoral degree-except for one student, to whom we gave an honorary GED.) While many Hyles graduates are not known in the scholarly world, they do excel at gathering crowds of children with candy, leading them to repeat the sinner’s prayer, and then baptizing millions of them on the backs of church buses, often baptizing the same children many times, thus creating more sinner’s-prayer-repeaters by far than the number of converts gathered on the day of Pentecost, when Peter, not having read Hyles’s church manual, told the lost to repent instead of telling them to ask Jesus into their hearts (although the converts at Pentecost seemed to stick around a lot longer, even without gifts of soda pop and candy, Acts 2:41-47). Dr. Riplinger also has earned degrees in home economics, which help her to be qualified not only to be a keeper at home, but also to write scholarly works on textual criticism and Bible versions. Among many other fine arguments by Mrs. Riplinger, her Acrostic Alegbra stands out, proving the New American Standard Version and New International Version are inferior to the Authorized Version:
- Step 1: (NASV – NIV) – AV = X
- Step 2: (NASV –
NIV) – AV = X - Step 3: (ASI + NV) – AV = X
- Step 4:
ASI + NV– AV = X - Step 5: SIN = X
Clearly, the fact that one can get to the letters “SIN” from the NASV and NIV in this fashion proves the inferiority of these Bible versions.
Since I am supposed to debate James White on the LSB, or Legacy Standard Bible, which is an update to the NASV, it is appropriate that I also update Dr. Riplinger’s Acrostic Algebra. Note:
The LSB leaves things out, as do other modern versions. If one leaves out the middle line of the “B” in “LSB,” one is left with “LSD,” a dangerous drug which is a SIN. Thus, just like the NASV and NIV, through acrostic algebra, lead to SIN, so does the LSB.
-QED
My discovery of this argument reminded me of the quality argumentation of leading atheist Dan Barker, who, employed Dorothy Murdock’s great mythicist scholarship in my debate with him. Ms. Murdock argued that Moses is borrowed from pagan mythology because of a 16th century AD Michelangelo painting displaying horns on Moses’ head, which represent psychedelic mushrooms or LSD. Barker also employed the weighty arguments of Barbara Walker, an author of books about tarot cards and knitting, in our two debates over the Old Testament.
I think that this update to Dr. Riplinger’s Acrostic Algebra should prove very convincing. James White, get ready!
Note: Wishing to be fair, I tried to reach out to Ms. Riplinger by means of the website where she sells her books. I asked her about the acrostic algebra. I would have liked to reproduce the response I received, which both asked about whether those who questioned her use of it had taken a class in symbolic logic at Harvard (which I assume she believes would somehow support her use of acrostic algebra-indicating she never took a class in symbolic logic at Harvard) and also said that the acrostic algebra was simply rhetorical rather than a substantive argument. However, I was not given permission to reproduce the email. So I wanted to give Ms. Riplinger a chance to defend the Acrostic Algebra in her own words, out of fairness, but I was not allowed to do so.
–TDR
Go-To Page for the James White / Thomas Ross Bible Text and Version Debate
Thank you to all readers who are praying and/or fasting for me and for God’s kingdom and truth to be glorified and advanced in my upcoming debate with James White.
I have created a go-to page with information about the debate. Links to the video should be posted there when it becomes available, as well as being accessible on the KJB1611 YouTube and KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channels. The go-to page should be updated with specific debate times in case you wish to attend in person, as well as the debate livestream link which we are hoping to make available. So:
Click here to visit the go-to page for the James White / Thomas Ross Bible Text and Version Debate
–TDR
Christians CAN learn Greek and Hebrew-they are not too hard! Part 5 of 7
The first four blog posts summarizing the argument in Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages explained the value of learning the Biblical languages. Clearly, knowing the languages is valuable. However, are they learnable? Aren’t Greek and Hebrew too hard to learn?
Actually, Greek and Hebrew are emphatically NOT too hard to learn. They are not too hard because of the following reasons, summarized from pages 40-51 of Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages:
1.) Christians have their Almighty Father to help them learn the languages.
2.) The self-discipline involved in learning the languages can contribute to their sanctification.
3.) Scripture is not God hiding Himself. The Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are God’s “revelation,” not God’s obscuring Himself.
4.) For century after century, Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek were the languages of the common man, not of the elite few.
5.) A very high percentage of Koine Greek speakers picked it up as a second language, while having a different native tongue. So can modern English speakers today.
6.) The Hebrew Old Testament was comprehensible to the simple rural folk that comprised the large majority of Israel.
7.) The Greek New Testament was comprehensible to the slaves and lower class people who constituted the large majority in the first century churches.
8.) It is harder to master modern English than it is to learn to read the Greek New Testament or Hebrew Old Testament.
9.) English speakers assume English is an easy language while Greek and Hebrew are allegedly difficult, but their assumption is invalid–because we have already mastered English, we do not think much about what was involved in learning the language. Someone starting from scratch would more easily learn to read Greek or Hebrew than he would learn to master modern English.
10.) The vocabulary of the average four-year-old child is larger than the number of words one must learn to gain a solid grasp of the Greek New Testament or the Hebrew Old Testament.
11.) The inspiring examples of those who learned the languages as children, or without grammar books, or despite extremely pressing work commitments, or in the face of other hardships, show that learning the Biblical languages is eminently attainable.
12.) Numbers of countries world-wide are officially trilingual, while fifty-five nations are officially bilingual. There is no reason why people in these countries can master two or three languages in order to make money and efficiently function, but Christians cannot learn Greek and Hebrew in order to better know God and His Word.
The facts above are important, both to encourage people who are contemplating learning the languages and to refute Ruckmanite notions that Greek and Hebrew are impossibly difficult, so one must simply stick to English, not even use Greek or Hebrew lexica, and ignore the treasures God has laid up for His people in the Hebrew and Greek tongues.
–TDR
Learn Greek and Hebrew? Reasons Christians Should, part 4 of 7
Is it valuable for Christians learn the Biblical languages, Greek and Hebrew? Continuing to summarize Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages, Christians should learn Greek and Hebrew because:
1.) Greek and Hebrew help the believer to practice God’s Word and be conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus Christ. The more closely one beholds Christ’s glory in the mirror of Scripture, the more conformed to His image the Christian becomes–and Greek and Hebrew help believers see that ineffable glory.
2.) Greek and Hebrew help the Christian teach God’s Word to others. Every one of the Greek and Hebrew words of Scripture is inerrant and infallible, and must be preached and taught to all of the Lord’s saints in true, Baptist churches.
3.) Greek and Hebrew help believers to compose quality Christian literature.
4.) Greek and Hebrew are essential for Baptists to make faithful translations of Scripture into the many world languages that still lack God’s holy Word. It may be tolerable for an evangelist / missionary to translate Scripture from English if he does not know Greek and Hebrew, but it is far, far better to translate from the original languages. The Ruckmanite / Riplingerite idea that one must translate foreign language Bibles from English rather than Greek and Hebrew is evil.
5.) Greek and Hebrew contribute to bold preaching.
6.) Greek and Hebrew powerfully aid in apologetics, evangelism, and in the refutation of error. Whether before crowds in a public debate or one-on-one at a door, knowing the Biblical languages helps in evangelism and in defending the faith.
7.) Greek and Hebrew help Christians defend the Authorized, King James Version. Attacks on the KJV by proponents of modern versions can be answered far more effectively if one knows Greek and Hebrew himself and so can respond much more effectively to allegations of mistranslation in the KJV.
Much greater detail appears in the first forty pages of Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages.
–TDR
Suzerain-Vassal Treaties & the Books of Moses: Joshua Berman
I had the privilege of interviewing Jewish scholar Dr. Joshua Berman, professor of Hebrew Bible at Bar-Illan University in Israel, on the fact that the books of Moses, the Pentateuch, follow the late second Millennium BC format of a suzerain-vassal treaty. This fact strongly supports the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and, hence, the existence of genuine and unavoidable predictive prophecy in the Bible, and, thus, the Bible’s Divine authorship. Jehovah, the God of Israel, is the suzerain or great King, and Israel is the vassal, the subordinate dependent on the suzerain.
When my wife and I visited Egypt last year as part of a faculty tour of Egypt led by evangelical scholar James Hoffmeier, we had the privilege of interviewing Dr. Berman in Luxor, Egypt, on the issue of suzerain-vassal treaties (he prefers to be called “Joshua.”) Joshua Berman explains the issue quite clearly and effectively, so if you find the terminology “suzerain vassal treaty” scary, watch the video below of the interview, and I suspect you will both understand the issue and see the value of it for Christian apologetics.
I have posted about apologetics videos recorded on this trip to Egypt in previous posts on this blog, such as this one on the famous Merneptah Stele.
Ironically, when I debated president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Dan Barker, on the Old Testament, Mr. Barker claimed that “The Israelis over in Israel … the archaeologists are throwing up their hands saying, ‘No, there’s nothing. None of these stories has any archaeological evidence at all.’” Barker’s assertion was always ridiculous, as was demonstrated within the debate itself, but the interview with Dr. Berman provides even more evidence for the foolishness of Mr. Barker’s argument.
After the interview with Dr. Joshua Berman, other scholars, including Kenneth Kitchen (On the Reliability of the Old Testament), James Hoffmeier (The Archaeology of the Bible), and Meredith Kline (Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy) are also quoted. You can learn more about archaeological evidence for the Old Testament here.
So please watch the video below. You can watch the embed below, or view it on faithsaves.net here, or on Rumble by clicking here, or on YouTube by clicking here.
–TDR
Should Christians Learn the Biblical Languages? Part 3 of 7
Should Christians learn the Biblical languages, Greek and Hebrew? Continuing to summarize Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages, Christians should learn Greek and Hebrew because:
1.) Computer tools are insufficient substitutes for actually knowing the Biblical languages. There are many precious gems in Scripture that someone who knows the Biblical languages will see easily, while one who does not will likely miss entirely.
2.) Computer tools do not enable a student of Scripture to follow the syntax of the Biblical languages, or to catch markers punctuating a discourse.
3.) Computer tools are unlikely to enable a reader to grasp the exegetical significance of the Hebrew accent system.
4.) Sometimes computer tools are making exegetical, interpretive decisions, not simply identifying forms in the Biblical languages (compare the study of Matthew 6:13 in Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages).
5.) The student who does not know the Biblical languages will often find himself at the mercy of others as he studies the text fo Scripture. It is hard for him to accurately evaulate arguments made in scholarly commentaries, for example.
Romans 12:3; Ephesians 4:11; Deuteronomy 24:1-4; John 1:1; Genesis 1:1; Habakkuk 2:4, and other texts illustrate these truths. Questions such as whether all teachers are pastors; whether divorce can be justified; the exact affirmation of John 1:1 about Christ’s Deity; the emphasis in the first verse of the Old Testament; the theme of the entire book of Habakkuk and the entire book of Romans, and others are all greatly impacted by details of the Hebrew and Greek Biblical language text.
To understand these arguments, please read Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages up through page 23. I trust that the exegetical insight into the passages examined will be a blessing as well as illustrating the value of the Biblical languages.
–TDR
Does the KJV mistranslate with the phrase “God forbid”?
The phrase “God forbid” is relatively frequently asserted to be a mistranslation in the King James Version:
Me genoito … means literally, Be it not so, and which might properly be paraphrased by our emphatic “Never!” but which … with small warrant … [has been] seen fit to paraphrase by using the semi-profane expression, “God forbid.” There are fourteen such mistranslations in the epistles of Paul according to the King James version.” (John William McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton, The Four-Fold Gospel [Cincinnati, OH: The Standard Publishing Company, 1914], 593.)
The phrase appears in both the Old and New Testaments, in English, in the following texts:
Gen. 44:7 And they said unto him, Wherefore saith my lord these words? God forbid that thy servants should do according to this thing:
Gen. 44:17 And he said, God forbid that I should do so: but the man in whose hand the cup is found, he shall be my servant; and as for you, get you up in peace unto your father.
Josh. 22:29 God forbid that we should rebel against the LORD, and turn this day from following the LORD, to build an altar for burnt offerings, for meat offerings, or for sacrifices, beside the altar of the LORD our God that is before his tabernacle.
Josh. 24:16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;
1Sam. 12:23 Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way:
1Sam. 14:45 And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbid: as the LORD liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground; for he hath wrought with God this day. So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not.
1Sam. 20:2 And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but that he will shew it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so.
1Chr. 11:19 And said, My God forbid it me, that I should do this thing: shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy? for with the jeopardy of their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mightiest.
Job 27:5 God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me.
Luke 20:16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.
Rom. 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Rom. 3:6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
Rom. 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Rom. 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom. 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom. 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Rom. 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Rom. 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom. 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom. 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
1Cor. 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
Gal. 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
Gal. 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Gal. 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
Does the KJV mistranslate the Hebrew and Greek phrases in question? The answer is a clear “no”! The phrases are idiomatic phrases that involve the invocation of God. Please see my new article at FaithSaves.net on this topic, “Is ‘God Forbid’ a Mistranslation in the KJV (King James Version)?” for more information.
No verse in Scripture promises that God would give English speakers an infallible translation in their language, although one would expect God’s special providence to be upon the Bible He knew would be that of the world-language for many years. Nevertheless, King James Only believers do well to have a knee-jerk reaction in favor of KJV renderings, as, in vast numbers of instances, the KJV’s translation decisions prove to be justifiable, and critics prove to be wrong.
–TDR
Answers to the Racist Race Question: White/Black or Human/American?
Scripture teaches that there is only one race–the human race. Furthermore, Biblical teaching condemns racism and, when consistently applied, results in the abolition of chattel slavery. Consequently, I do not appreciate the renewed push, especially on the left, for making everything about race. Critical race theory is both contrary to Scripture and (unsurprisingly) does not reflect reality, reflecting in many ways a worldview that is contrary to what God has revealed in His Word.
Furthermore, since when surveys ask me about my “race,” I am going to be judged by the color of my skin and not the content of my character, I know that if I answer the way the survey wants me to I will give the “wrong” answer. Since my skin is on the lighter side of the spectrum of human pigmentation, making less melanin than some others whose ancestors came from warmer regions, I am supposed to answer “white,” and then feel guilty for the oppressive role that my ancestors played in human slavery in the USA (even though they weren’t even here, but immigrated to the USA after slavery was already abolished, on one side of the family fleeing the slavery of communism). As someone who is “white,” I am oppressing Barak Obama, Kamala Harris, Michael Jordan, and other incredibly powerful, wealthy, and influential people who are “black.” If I answer “white,” I will be discriminated against in the name of “equity.” My area will get less federal and state funds. It will just be worse for my community and for me as a person, and I will be contributing to dividing my nation over race, when the amount of melanin made by one’s skin is one of the least important features of a person.
I have consequently decided to answer surveys on race in one of two ways. When a survey asks about “race,” I will use the “other” checkbox and say:
1.) “Human.” I am part of the human race.
or, alternatively,
2.) “American.” That would seem to be as legitimate a choice as Nigerian, Norwegian, Japanese, Cuban, etc.
The only exception for me would be on a medical form where it could actually make a real difference, as people who are descended from Japheth are more likely to get some diseases, and less likely to get others, than descendants of Ham (and the same goes for the descendants of Shem). If the question actually serves a legitimate purpose, I can answer it the way they want me to. But if the form is simply to promote “equity” by punishing some groups to favor others based on the color of their skin, I am going to answer “human” or “American.”
Furthermore, since a man can really be a woman now, men can get pregnant, many children in public “schools” are identifying not only as the other gender but even as “furries” or other animals, it should be no difficulty for me to identify as whatever I want for race. If men and women are not determined by biology, my race could be Mutant Ninja Turtle, or I could be a pigeon.
So there is certainly no reason I cannot truthfully answer “human” or “American” on the “race” question.
I would also encourage you to think about the divisive and racist race questions that come up in many settings. Think about whether we would be better off if a very high percentage of the population started answering “human” to these questions and started believing what the Bible says about race and racism.
–TDR
Objections to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Are there answers?
The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is at the core of the Christian faith. Without the resurrection, the gospel is not “good news,” but absurd deceit. As 1 Corinthians 15 explains:
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. … 12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
What are the Major Objections to Christ’s Resurrection?
How would you respond to someone who denies the resurrection of Christ, making one or more of the following arguments:
1.) “The disciples stole Christ’s body.”
2.) “Christ did not die, but only swooned/passed out on the cross and appeared to be dead. Then He came out of the grave after the cool tomb revived Him, and so appeared to have risen from the dead, when in fact He never died.”
3.) “The post-resurrection appearances of Christ were just hallucinations or visions.”
4.) “Christ did not rise from the dead because it is a miracle. ANY explanation is more likely than a miracle, because David Hume has proven miracles are impossible when he wrote:
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.… Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature.… [I]t is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed, in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior. (David Hume, Of Miracles)
A version of argument number four came up in my PATAS debate with the president of the Philippines ATheist/Agnosticism, and Secularism organization in the Philippines (also on Rumble here).
The atheist argued that aliens stole the body of Christ and made it look like Christ really rose from the dead. His point was that anything is more likely than a miracle–making David Hume’s argument above, albeit in a less sophisticated and even more problematic way than Hume made it. (We posted about the PATAS debate on the blog here, while Shabir Ally also attacked the gospel accounts as discussed here.)
How would you answer these objections?
In my series on how to teach an evangelistic Bible study, we discuss these objections in the class sessions starting with 4.8, the eighth study on how to teach Bible study #4, on the gospel–the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. So if you would like answers, please click here to check out the teaching sessions starting with section 4.8. Written material dealing with the resurrection can also be found here.
Recent Comments