Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

One World Empire?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

 

John:

Since the previous kingdoms are said to have ruled the whole earth, but didn't literally do so, why do so many believe a future kingdom is going to literally rule the whole earth when the other instances of such did not?

 

The idea of a literal world kingdom (other than Christ's) hasn't always been what Christians have held to. Are some so busy looking for a literal world kingdom they are missing a coming smaller kingdom (like the previous kingdoms Scripture says ruled the earth)?

 

This is similar to the concept of those American preachers who declare Christians here will never suffer any really bad times because they will be raptured. These Christians are being sold a belief that doesn't agree with Scripture, yet they've heard it so long they expect to always have a good life because if bad times come, they will be raptured. These same people, when hit with bad times, often fall into great despair and sometimes completely fall away from the church.

 

The very fact no one is able to answer the question posed is clear indication this belief in a future one world kingdom isn't founded as solidly as the prophecy preachers proclaim.

It seems they cannot quote a clear Scripture support the teaching of a "one world empire."

 

All they can do is accuse you of not believing the Scripture.

 

 

The problem is not answers that's been given, its your not believing the Bible on this issue. That's why I brought up the flood, many claim the flood covered only a prat of the earth, although the Bible seems to have it covering the whole earth. And I asked about it for one that claims the Bible is wrong on one thing, they will make the claim its wrong one many things.

 

If you consider the various Hebrew/Aramaic words translated "earth" or "world" you will see a diversity of meanings.

 

e.g. Erets - AVland 1543, earth 712, country 140, ground 98, world 4, way 3, common 1, field 1, nations 1, wilderness + 04057 1

Dan. 8:5 And as I was considering , behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth776, and touched not the ground776: and the goat [had] a notable horn between his eyes.

 

7 And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground776, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.

 

10 And it waxed great , [even] to the host of heaven; and it cast down [some] of the host and of the stars to the ground776, and stamped upon them.

 

12 And an host was given [him] against the daily [sacrifice] by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground776; and it practised , and prospered

 

18 Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground776: but he touched me, and set me upright.

 

9:6 Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land776.

O Lord, righteousness [belongeth] unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, [that are] near, and [that are] far off, through all the countries776 whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee.

 

15 And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land776 of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten thee renown, as at this day; we have sinned , we have done wickedly.

 

Thanks to the Blue Letter Bible with Strong's numbering.

 

Often those who claim the modern Israel is the fulfilment of prophecy use the term "eretz Israel" for the promised land.  Clearly that is valid linguistically but once the Hebrew "eretz" is used, we must consider how it is used in Scripture. 

 

Would it simply be valid for prophecies concerning the whole earth/world to refer specifically to the land of Israel?

 

The 4 kingdoms of Dan. 7 did rule Israel/Judah, and prophecy against them often relates to how they ruled.

 

Zec. 1:13 And the Lord answered the angel that talked with me with good words and comfortable words.

14 So the angel that communed with me said unto me, Cry thou, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts; I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy.

15 And I am very sore displeased with the heathen that are at ease: for I was but a little displeased, and they helped forward the affliction.

16 Therefore thus saith the Lord; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith the Lord of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem.

17 Cry yet, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts; My cities through prosperity shall yet be spread abroad; and the Lord shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem.

18 Then lifted I up mine eyes, and saw, and behold four horns.

19 And I said unto the angel that talked with me, What be these? And he answered me, These are the horns which have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem.

20 And the Lord shewed me four carpenters.

21 Then said I, What come these to do? And he spake, saying, These are the horns which have scattered Judah, so that no man did lift up his head: but these are come to fray them, to cast out the horns of the Gentiles, which lifted up their horn over the land of Judah to scatter it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

The problem is not answers that's been given, its your not believing the Bible on this issue. That's why I brought up the flood, many claim the flood covered only a prat of the earth, although the Bible seems to have it covering the whole earth. And I asked about it for one that claims the Bible is wrong on one thing, they will make the claim its wrong one many things.

There you go making accusations again while not even addressing the topic or answering questions.

 

I can't be any more clear than saying that I've not said I don't believe the Bible, I've been very clear I believe the Bible and I've posted here enough years you should know that. Asking questions is a search for understanding. The very fact no one has posted clear answers to this question makes it very clear that questions should be asked.

 

No one has answered why when Scripture speaks of preceding empires having ruled the earth when they didn't literally do so, they believe a future empire will literally rule the entire earth rather than follow the same pattern as before where the kingdoms actually only ruled a small area yet were somehow seen of God as ruling the earth. What Scripture supports that a final kingdom will not follow the pattern of the previous kingdoms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In studying this matter, it's interesting to note the great disparity of beliefs over time with regards to who the "one world ruler" would be. At various times over the centuries Christians have believed this to be a particular pope, or all popes, or one of dozens of national leaders, from Napoleon to Hitler to John F. Kennedy!

 

Along with Christian searches for the world ruler have come differing ideas of a final kingdom, ranging from a spiritual matter under the RCC, to being the clearly less than world encompassing empires of Napoleon or Hitler. Some have viewed it as being a leader who would take over The League of Nations or the UN, NATO, Warsaw Pact, EU. Some have viewed the final kingdom as being only a European kingdom, some a Middle Eastern kingdom, some a kingdom that covered part of Europe and a portion of the Middle East, and in more modern times, to be one that will encompass the entire planet.

 

Those who claim the idea of a literal one world government with one leader tend to run into problems because they point out that until very recently such would have been impossible. Just as those who say their could be no rapture before the restoration of Israel, those who say a one world government couldn't exist until our time find themselves unintentionally denying the idea of the imminent return of Christ. Has the return of Christ only been imminent since some time after 1948 or has it truly been imminent since the time of the Apostles who recorded in Scripture their expectation of Christ returning soon?

 

As we have witnessed over the dozen years or so, the "mightiest nation on earth" couldn't even control a tiny country like Iraq or Afghanistan. Are we really to expect a literal world kingdom ruled by one man that will have the power and control to put his mark upon every nomadic tribesman in Africa, every island dweller, each Eskimo, every South American Indian deep in the jungles of the Amazon, the entire masses of humanity in China and India, all across North America, Russia, Spain, etc.?

 

Another kingdom of similitude to that which Babylon, Greece or Rome controlled is certainly possible. Yet even when considering this prospect, why do the literal one world empire prophecy preachers continually declare there have been no empires equal to the Babylonians, Greeks or Romans, when the fact is there have been several major empires since then, at least two of which stretched into the 20th century; the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire. It seems they fear to mention these empires because they preach that there is no major empire between the fall of Rome and their view of a literal world empire. The fact is, no other empire has dominated the world as the British Empire once did. If we have to deny reality, there would seem to be something wrong with the train of thought.

 

There is no doubt the end of the world will come about just as God directs. The question is, what form will that take and are there many pointing in a wrong direction that may cause harm to those who believe such when reality turns out to be different; just as it did when Christ first came to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There you go making accusations again while not even addressing the topic or answering questions.

 

I can't be any more clear than saying that I've not said I don't believe the Bible, I've been very clear I believe the Bible and I've posted here enough years you should know that. Asking questions is a search for understanding. The very fact no one has posted clear answers to this question makes it very clear that questions should be asked.

 

No one has answered why when Scripture speaks of preceding empires having ruled the earth when they didn't literally do so, they believe a future empire will literally rule the entire earth rather than follow the same pattern as before where the kingdoms actually only ruled a small area yet were somehow seen of God as ruling the earth. What Scripture supports that a final kingdom will not follow the pattern of the previous kingdoms?

 

No, I'm not accusing, your the one that stated it was wrong, that you did not believe the Bible was correct.

 

This is what you stated.

"Scripture refers to them as having ruled the whole earth, yet they only ruled a very small area."

 

Are you now stating you did not say that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No, I'm not accusing, your the one that stated it was wrong, that you did not believe the Bible was correct.

 

This is what you stated.

"Scripture refers to them as having ruled the whole earth, yet they only ruled a very small area."

 

Are you now stating you did not say that?

Are you saying that you believe the Babylonian Empire covered the whole earth, ruling in Arkansas, Australia and Alaska just as they did in Iraq?

 

I wrote a statement that is both biblically and historically accurate. There are several points in Scripture where the term "all" or "whole" is used when it doesn't mean that in a literal sense. None of that means Scripture is wrong, that's your jump, not mine, what it means is that we need to dig deeper to find out the meaning.

 

And, yet again, you have provided no answer to the question at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have provided Scriptures, & pointed the variety of ways the key words like "eretz" can mean, & have been translated.

 

But then, I write in invisible ink ... :(

 

Dan. 4:1 Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.

I thought it good to shew the signs and wonders that the high God hath wrought toward me.

How great are his signs! and how mighty are his wonders! his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation.

 

22 It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth.

23 And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts of the field, till seven times pass over him;

 

"Earth" is the planet, the extent of Neb's kingdom, and the soil the tree is growing in. And the one world emperor s the LORD, Jesus.

 

Does anyone know what John is asking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have provided Scriptures, & pointed the variety of ways the key words like "eretz" can mean, & have been translated.

 

But then, I write in invisible ink ... :(

 

Dan. 4:1 Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.

I thought it good to shew the signs and wonders that the high God hath wrought toward me.

How great are his signs! and how mighty are his wonders! his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation.

 

22 It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth.

23 And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts of the field, till seven times pass over him;

 

"Earth" is the planet, the extent of Neb's kingdom, and the soil the tree is growing in. And the one world emperor s the LORD, Jesus.

 

Does anyone know what John is asking about?

Thank you for your contribution. I apologize for somehow missing this.

 

One of the main verses quoted by the prophecy preachers on this matter is from Daniel 2.

 

"And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth." Daniel 2:39

 

We know none of these three kingdoms literally ruled over all the earth, yet the prophecy preachers say another kingdom is to come forth like unto the ones before, yet today they proclaim it will be a literal worldwide kingdom with one literal worldwide ruler, which is inconsistent with the previous kingdoms they point to.

 

How, scripturally, are the prophecy preachers coming to the conclusion that a kingdom will be established that covers the entire earth, which the antichrist will rule over? Is it possible this viewpoint, which so many seem to have accepted without studying the matter through, could be incorrect? Just as the Jews misunderstood the prophecy of Christ coming the first time, could it be some of us have a misunderstanding of this prophecy and of the return of Christ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thank you for your contribution. I apologize for somehow missing this.

 

One of the main verses quoted by the prophecy preachers on this matter is from Daniel 2.

 

"And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth." Daniel 2:39

 

We know none of these three kingdoms literally ruled over all the earth, yet the prophecy preachers say another kingdom is to come forth like unto the ones before, yet today they proclaim it will be a literal worldwide kingdom with one literal worldwide ruler, which is inconsistent with the previous kingdoms they point to.

 

How, scripturally, are the prophecy preachers coming to the conclusion that a kingdom will be established that covers the entire earth, which the antichrist will rule over? Is it possible this viewpoint, which so many seem to have accepted without studying the matter through, could be incorrect? Just as the Jews misunderstood the prophecy of Christ coming the first time, could it be some of us have a misunderstanding of this prophecy and of the return of Christ?

There are several posts of mine on the page above. I can see a truly world wide kingdom - with Christ as the King of kings and Lord of lords. I see NO prophecy of an antichrist world empire.

 

Dan. 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There are several posts of mine on the page above. I can see a truly world wide kingdom - with Christ as the King of kings and Lord of lords. I see NO prophecy of an antichrist world empire.

 

Dan. 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

I agree, the earth will be ruled by Christ. The prophecy preachers proclaim a coming one world kingdom, encompassing the whole earth, with the antichrist as leader over the entire literal earth.

 

In studying this in more detail, it seems there are many holes in this idea, not the least of which are the wars some nations are said to wage against the antichrist, which would indicate he lacks worldwide control. They also ignore the fact the preceding kingdoms they say the antichrist world kingdom is following were not literally worldwide. Also ignored is their declaration that Christ could not return until the world could be united under one leader (the antichrist) in one world kingdom and that such has only recently become possible, which negates the belief in the imminent return of Christ.

 

Most of these prophecy preachers putting this forth are the same ones who once said Christ would return for His people between 1948 and 1988; then when that didn't occur they said Christ would return by 2007; then they either came up with new calculations or dropped it as if they had never said anything about it.

 

There seems to be a great deal of speculation and many gaps in the thread of this concept. This is why I asked the initial question and thus far no one has provided Scriptural evidence which proves there is a coming literal worldwide kingdom ruled by the antichrist.

 

I've read some writings by others on the subject and so far, all of them ignore these issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Many views but not much scripture apart from Covenanter. Let us look at what scripturte actually says in one short passage.

 

Dan 2:36  This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.
37  Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
38  And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
 
Note, in the image there are only four kingdoms, which stand till Christ, the stone cut without hands, set s up his kingdom.  The parallel passage in Dan 7 has only four kingdoms  (The same four in a different guise) with the saints taking the kingdom.##
 
John, I disagree with you that the RCC has little power.  She is probably the richest organisation on earth. She owns most of South America, a great deal of the USA and has uses its influence behind the scenes.  
 
As has been said, Constantine changed the form of empire to a religious empire. When he removed the seat of the empire to the east no emperor ruled from Rome ( the so called Western Emperors ruled from Milan or other cities) except for the popes.  They set up the Holy Roman Empire, the first Reich.  then the Kaiser, the 2nd Reich, then Hitler with the third Reich, and now we have the EU, the 4th Reich,  All its symbolism is Roman and RCC dominate.    Rome still Rules.
 
Remember Daniel's image.  4 kingdoms, then Christ's kingdom.  The image stands till the latter, which breaks it.  Same as Dan 7.  4 kingdoms then the saints take the kingdom. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Many views but not much scripture apart from Covenanter. Let us look at what scripturte actually says in one short passage.

 

Dan 2:36  This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.
37  Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
38  And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
 
Note, in the image there are only four kingdoms, which stand till Christ, the stone cut without hands, set s up his kingdom.  The parallel passage in Dan 7 has only four kingdoms  (The same four in a different guise) with the saints taking the kingdom.##
 
John, I disagree with you that the RCC has little power.  She is probably the richest organisation on earth. She owns most of South America, a great deal of the USA and has uses its influence behind the scenes.  
 
As has been said, Constantine changed the form of empire to a religious empire. When he removed the seat of the empire to the east no emperor ruled from Rome ( the so called Western Emperors ruled from Milan or other cities) except for the popes.  They set up the Holy Roman Empire, the first Reich.  then the Kaiser, the 2nd Reich, then Hitler with the third Reich, and now we have the EU, the 4th Reich,  All its symbolism is Roman and RCC dominate.    Rome still Rules.
 
Remember Daniel's image.  4 kingdoms, then Christ's kingdom.  The image stands till the latter, which breaks it.  Same as Dan 7.  4 kingdoms then the saints take the kingdom. 

 

While this doesn't address the original question, I appreciate the input.

 

The power of the RCC is greatly diminished from what it was. The RCC no longer rules over many of the heads of state in Europe. The EU has had run-ins with the RCC and while I don't know the details of them all, at least some I've read about the RCC didn't prevail.

 

The RCC does still hold some sway in South America, but even there it's not absolute and South America is far from being a bastion of power the RCC could use to control the world.

 

No doubt the RCC still holds influence, to one degree or another, in much of the world, but the edicts and whims of the pope are not respected or followed as in times past. American Catholic politicians, priests and laity often openly reject the teachings of the RCC and they continue stand in defiance of the pope even when threats are issued from the Vatican.

 

China, Russia and the Muslim nations are certainly not under the sway of the pope, nor is India. That's a large portion of the world both in terms of land, resources and people.

 

Is it your contention that the RCC is the final kingdom ruling the earth and that Christ will return to destroy the RCC and then establish His rule?

 

This is much different than the prophecy preachers who say a revived Roman Empire will rise up that the antichrist will rule and this empire will encompass the literal whole earth and antichrist will have authority over every person on the planet. Most speculate this will begin within the EU. Some say the antichrist will be a European, a few others say either a Jew or Syrian. Some of these hold to the idea the RCC will either be the one world religion of the world kingdom, or that the RCC will be the umbrella world religion in some form; while others have different theories.

 

In your view, how do "the saints take the kingdom"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When we look at Scripture we see that four empires are listed (Daniel, etc.) and all four are said to have ruled all the earth. However, did Babylon rule the whole earth? Did the Medo-Persians? Did the Greeks? Did the Romans?

 

Then there is talk of a future empire to rule the earth. Most teach this means a one world kingdom under one ruler. Why? If the first four empires are described as ruling all the earth, when they each obviously only ruled a portion, why do we assume the final empire will indeed encompass the entire earth?

 

I've heard countless prophecy preachers speak of how mighty the first four empires were and then declare that after Rome there has been no mighty empire. That's not even true. There have been several empires of various sizes. What's most striking is the total lack of acknowledging the British Empire, which at its height encompassed the earth and approximately 2/3 of the earth was under British rule. The British Empire had far more power and was much larger than any of the four empires mentioned in Scripture, yet the prophecy preachers totally ignore the British Empire and they state no mighty empire has existed since Rome but that a world empire is coming.

 

Is it possible Scripture is saying something different than what most prophecy preachers proclaim, and what many of us have been taught?

 

I keep in mind that the Jews, religious leaders and common folk alike, thought they understood the coming of the Christ but they turned out to be wrong.

An empire can rule the earth but not necessarily rule every kingdom. America is that way now. We don't rule every land but much of the world economy is based on the dollar, the English language is the official language (American English has taken over as the dominant form) and our culture pretty much influences the world except for the Middle East. America usually gets her way.

 

I remember seeing a documentary made by an English man how things like Levi jeans led to the downfall of the Soviet Union. I know that sounds ridiculous but if you see this documentary (The West and the Rest by PBS) a lot of it makes sense.

 

The "kings of the east" in Revelation most likely refer to China and the nations she'll control in the East and then you have Magog which may be a reference to Russia. All nations that will never be totally control by the beast. Also, the nations of Ishmael will never be controlled by the West based on Genesis 16:12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

An empire can rule the earth but not necessarily rule every kingdom. America is that way now. We don't rule every land but much of the world economy is based on the dollar, the English language is the official language (American English has taken over as the dominant form) and our culture pretty much influences the world except for the Middle East. America usually gets her way.

 

I remember seeing a documentary made by an English man how things like Levi jeans led to the downfall of the Soviet Union. I know that sounds ridiculous but if you see this documentary (The West and the Rest by PBS) a lot of it makes sense.

 

The "kings of the east" in Revelation most likely refer to China and the nations she'll control in the East and then you have Magog which may be a reference to Russia. All nations that will never be totally control by the beast. Also, the nations of Ishmael will never be controlled by the West based on Genesis 16:12.

Much of this makes sense. While this wouldn't apply to the Babylonian, Greek or Roman Empires, such could be applied to a future empire which could allow it to be a regional empire, like the previous ones mentioned, while yet having "rule" over the world in some manner. We know the British Empire did a pretty good job of this in its time with much less of the capabilities at hand today.

 

I agree, the culture of the West seeping into the Soviet Union was a major factor, not only in Russia but in the Warsaw Pact nations to an even greater degree. 

 

Your last paragraph seems far more in line with part of what many prophecy preachers declare, yet they still claim that somehow the whole earth will be under the total leadership of the antichrist; which I don't see how this could be when they agree with you regarding the nations that will oppose him.

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Much of this makes sense. While this wouldn't apply to the Babylonian, Greek or Roman Empires, such could be applied to a future empire which could allow it to be a regional empire, like the previous ones mentioned, while yet having "rule" over the world in some manner. We know the British Empire did a pretty good job of this in its time with much less of the capabilities at hand today.

 

I agree, the culture of the West seeping into the Soviet Union was a major factor, not only in Russia but in the Warsaw Pact nations to an even greater degree. 

 

Your last paragraph seems far more in line with part of what many prophecy preachers declare, yet they still claim that somehow the whole earth will be under the total leadership of the antichrist; which I don't see how this could be when they agree with you regarding the nations that will oppose him.

 

Thank you.

If you notice the nations that the Beast may not completely control are also nations that Catholicism never made great inroads within. Russia, China and the Arabian nations (Turkey also) are all nations that on the most part have kept the RCC out of them while with the rest of the world this isn't the case. Israel is another exception but than again many Jews lived under Catholic rule for much of the last 1,500 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Are you saying that you believe the Babylonian Empire covered the whole earth, ruling in Arkansas, Australia and Alaska just as they did in Iraq?

 

I wrote a statement that is both biblically and historically accurate. There are several points in Scripture where the term "all" or "whole" is used when it doesn't mean that in a literal sense. None of that means Scripture is wrong, that's your jump, not mine, what it means is that we need to dig deeper to find out the meaning.

 

And, yet again, you have provided no answer to the question at hand.

 

I'm saying if the Bible says it, its true, I do not need to correct God. And yes, I provided an answer, if the Bible says it, believe it. I have given that answer several times yet you seem not to care for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...