ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Depart From Truth Is Heresy

The Bible clearly says the earth is 6,000 years old. To depart from the literal truth is heresy, a reason in itself to homeschool, away from all that scientific humanism, am I mistaken?

Moderator - Actually, the Bible doesn't state the earth is 6,000 years old. There are several skips of information regarding peoples ages. Closer guesses estimate around 10,000.

Join Our Christian Chat and Take The Wisdom Bible Quiz
 ---MikeM on 2/20/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (5)

Post a New Blog

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. If one wants to, as fundamentalist do to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, or it's flat, or the sun and planets go around the earth (Psalms 93) it's their perogative, they then must opt out of all educational systems, as it would be a threat to literalism, they should discourage the kids from education as well. Two seperate creation stories were put together by the KJV scribes, one out of space time, often called the 'E' as opposed to the 'Y' strain.
---SLCGuy on 8/3/07

I do not recall the Bible stating the earth itself is only 6000 years old. If science was used correctly, it should complement scriptures. It's when the truth is deliberately hidden is when science and scriptures clash. The Bible refers to a certain period of time starting with Adam - who was born 6,000 years ago (some say around 4004 BC). Men after Adam are called Adamites. Prior to Adam are called Pre-Adamites. This earth is trillions of years old. And science is constantly proving this.
---Kimberly on 1/10/07

Lupe ... in my last blog, I typed the word "reward" but it came out as "regard".
Since the Moderator carries the blame for everything, let's say he must have incorrectly changed what I had written. But to be honest, it must have been my fingers!!
---alan_of_uK on 3/14/06

Lupe ... Yes of course Satan is a liar, and made lying promises to Jesus as to how he would reqard Jesus.
But the point I hoped to make is that the Bible says Jesus was shown all the nations of the whole earth, which is impossible (not that Satan said he was showing him all the nations)
So the Bible, being True, was being figuratively True at this point, not physically & literally accurate. And I believe that strengthens the Bible's power.
---alan_of_uK on 3/13/06

Lupe ... yes the Bible was written as God wanted it to be written, but He did not necessarily mean us to take it as a literal minute-by-minute accurate account of everything that happened & everything that was said. To say that, is not to say it is not True.
---alan_of_uK on 3/13/06

There is nothing wrong with the Bible. There is something wrong in the interpretation of it. The Bible does not lie, but speaks through writers inspired by God. What their feelings were and, what was happening at the time was included in what they wrote. Yet it is the way God wanted it to be written. It all has a purpose for the believer. Our job is to read it and learn, not to distroy its purpose an in so doing distroy God's Word. If it is there, He said it, we need to know why He said it.
---Lupe2618 on 3/13/06

Alan, in your explanation you forgot to mention that when Satan speaks, he lies. So if he says things to someone or to Jesus, he is lying most of the time. That he said it, is true, that what he said is many times not true. He is satan after all. A liar.
---Lupe2618 on 3/13/06

# 5 So I think the word "literal" is not the right one to use, and we have to be careful in what we understand by the word "true". If we say "literally true" it seems to imply "physically accurate".
But I would suggest that the Bible is True in that it expresses "fundamental Truth" of God, as in my example of the temptation of Christ.
---alan_of_uK on 3/13/06

# 4 But it is True, (although not literally accurate) because Satan was saying to Jesus that He could have all the nations if He wanted them, and putting all these nations in Jesus's mind's eye, even if His physical eye did not see them.
---alan_of_uK on 3/13/06

# 3 There are other things in the Bible which cannot be literally true (in the sense of physical accuracy, but which are True (note the cap) One example is the time Satan took Jesus up to a high place, and showed Him ALL the nations of the whole earth. Now that cannot be literally accurate because the world is a globe and from the highest mountain you cannot see over the horizon. ... cont
---alan_of_uK on 3/13/06

# 2 I think "no". Firstly, it was written with David's understanding and makes no claim to be a factual textbook of the creation. And secondly it is True (if not scientifically accurate) because it shows the earth, being that part of God's Created Universe on which He placed us, as being at the centre of His attention and love.
---alan_of_uK on 3/13/06

# 1 No-one has commented on SlcS's observation that the Bible says, if taken literally, that the sun and stars go round the earth. I think we do know now that is not the case. So does that mean that the Bible is not true, as SlcG appears to suggest?
---alan_of_uK on 3/13/06

[-2-] "totter or shake" so does *not* necessarily imply no movement whatsoever! What Ps.93:1b says in effect is: God established earth (in its orbit) in such a way that it will *not* wildly go off on its own away from the sun! At the end of time, however, God will cause all sorts of 'shaking' in the heavens and destroy earth as we know it! Unfortunately, there are still some who believe the Bible teaches physical geocentrism.
---Daniel on 3/13/06

[-1-] John_T: You started out good on Psalm 93:1, but then said: "Earth is not mentioned" there! Well, "world" [Hebrew: t(ay)b(ay)l] is not only a synonym of "eretz" and used in parallel with it (e.g., Psa 89:11), but is even closer to our word "globe" than "eretz" (land) is. The KEY here (apart from Psalm 93's contextual emphasis on the LORD, not the earth) is the verb "move" (#04131 Heb: mot) which is really like... [cont.]
---Daniel on 3/13/06

SLCGuy: You never answered me! Apparently you are not aware of the fact that diamonds (all that have been tested so far) still have C14 in them! Only 'young earth Creationists' bothered with this and had various _certified C14 labs_ destroy diamonds to do these tests! Now evolutionists are confused. They can't claim 'contamination' inside diamonds taken from deep within various mines as they've tried explaining 'dates all over the map' for rocks.
---Daniel on 3/13/06

Psalm 93 begins, "The Lord reigns, he is robed in majesty..." Therefore, it is about God.
Earth is not mentioned in that psalm
---John_T on 3/10/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis

The Bible says in Psalms 93 that the earth does not move, so the sun and stars go around the earth as MOST CHRISTIANS in history, Catholic and protestant believed? The Bible says 'do not suffer a witch to live?' Willing to take thoes verses literally as most Christians in history did?
Biology 101; C-14 is one of many ways to date the rate of decay. The Bible is about salvation, not science. To take the Bible seriously and literally are NOT the same thing; in spite what a minority says.
---SLCguy on 3/9/06

SLCXGuy, what you claim to be "your" wrong, may be a Christians "right"; indeed "the" right may be "your" wrong.
---Eloy on 3/8/06

At one time the scientific community thought that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth.

Yes, some in the church thought that, too. However God had David write in Psalms the truth about those things. Look them up.
---John_T on 3/7/06

At one time the scientific community thought that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth.

Yes, some in the church thought that, too. However God had David write in Psalms the truth about those things. Look them up.
---John_T on 3/7/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma

SLCguy, What I am saying is that what the scientific community considers absolute, ultimately is not. What is absolute is God and His word. So, if something the "scientific" community says contradicts scripture, I will hold to scripture. Because, example-C14 dating, some things touted as hard cold fact are now known to be flawed in their presupposition - which then causes the whole to be flawed. My "presupposition" is that God is God, man is not, and God's word is absolute truth.
---daphn8897 on 3/6/06

What is being argued for is nihilism if you say science is only philosophy. That went out with Descartes 200 years ago. What you are saying is emperical knowledge does not exist, therefore we would, with such a view be going backward to the middle ages.
---SLCGuy on 3/4/06


I assume that you are indeed a Mormon from Salt Lake because you did not deny it.

The reason for it is to understand where people come from theologically, and not to throw stones.

Hope you feel comfortable here!
---John_T on 3/4/06

SLCguy, You are correct that colleges today no longer admit that science is just another philosophy (way of looking at things). I think much more truth could be found if folks in the "scientific" community were more honest in their approach, with much less presupposition and more openess to that which they don't understand. Unfortunately, that community has these days it's own agenda.
---daphn8897 on 3/4/06

Shop For Christian Loans

daphn8897 ;Science is philosophy? My goodness, they have some rearranging to do at the colleges! I think if you want to merge the philosophy and science depts. at ANY college you have an uphill battle; and you battle is also cultural, and historical.

John T-You are perceptive.
---SLCGuy on 3/4/06


Are you from Salt Lake City?
Are you a Mormon?

Your blog name makes me curious.
---John_T on 3/2/06

RE C14:
I am not a know it all, but I do know where to find things in the electronic Encycloepdia Britannica. I stayed at a Holiday Express last night! LOL
---John_T on 3/2/06

SLGXguy, For me, the age of the earth is a non-issue. What God chooses to reveal through scripture and true science is enough for me. My only quarrel is when views touted as scientific conflict with scripture. Once again, folks seem to forget that science is a philosophy - and for hundreds of years was taught as such - not as today where scientist are somehow held up as gods or as being infallible.
---daphn8897 on 3/2/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol

C14 is one of many ways of dating. If I 'got into it' in detail I would be accused of being pedantic, then the bloggers would run from the discussion. I do not do drugs do to results, it makes people dumb. I do not drink, as it makes people drunk. I do not 'do' fundamentalism as to results clearly seen. If my kids come home from school and say the pacific ocean does not exist, they are in the wrong school. If they come home from church and say the earth is 6,000 years old, they are in the wrong church.
---SLCXGuy on 3/2/06

With the Carbon 14 dating procedure it is a known fact that once something it dated by this method in one part of the lab and moved to another part and tested again different results occur. The Bible does not give a clear age of the earth either. There are physical and spiritual indications that the earth is very young. The intense pressures and power of the Flood caused a lot of things to be considered older than they are. Tree sap, called Amber, is one of these.
---Elder on 3/2/06

Thanks JohnT, for the definition. It is interesting that when the "scientific" community makes an assumption it is considered creative thinking... but when christian's do, it is considered foolish or unlearned. Well, you know what they say when one assumes.... ;o)
---daphn8897 on 3/2/06

C14 dating is the assumption that the decay to nitrogen of radiocarbon (carbon-14) is uniform.

Once a life dies, it no longer makes C14. C14 has a half-life of 5,730 40 years i.e., half the amount of the radioisotope present at any given time will undergo spontaneous disintegration during the succeeding 5,730 years.

According to the theory, things are now as they were in the beginning. However, Peter disagrees: 1Pe3:4-6
---John_T on 3/1/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery

Was watching a special on PBS about the Shroud of Turin. The scientists involved made a couple of references to carbon dating and that it has been found to be flawed and inaccurate, and that they are pursuing other methods to obtain a more accurate dating on the artifact. Go figure....
---daphn8897 on 3/1/06

Daphne ... I had nor heard that carbon dating has been proved a failure, but maybe I have not read the right papers. Can you point us to your sources please?
---alan8869_of_UK on 3/1/06

SLCguy, You are correct, the bible does not contradict true science. However, more and more the scientific community is finding that what it thought was fact, is not. One particular failed "scientific" method is carbon dating. Since it is no longer reliable "science", should we not revisit the possibility that the earth is not as old as once supposed? Could it be that 6,000 years is not too far off? Could it be that we just don't know?
---daphn8897 on 3/1/06

No I am not a 'Cliff.' I ask the same question that I have for years, and still do not have the answers to the same old questions. 'Lampost' I was called in high school, 'spaceman' in the CCC, and 'cultic' by some family members, and finally 'Perv' by wife.
---SLCGuy on 3/1/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion

SLCguy, You are beginning to sound like 1 Cliff. I think by some of your answers you sound somewhat like him. Are you hiding behind another name to get my attention? Seems I am going around answering you almost in every area as I did before. Or maybe it is just someone that sounds like Cliff.

Moderator - Niki and Dakota.
---Lupe2618 on 2/27/06

In the final analysis those who claim the earth is '6,000' years are engaged in whats called cognative dissonance.' they deny objective reality, turning it in for a subjective standard, and then call it faith. The proff it, in Psalms 93 it says the earth does not move; are they willing to carry their literalism that far? The Bible is about salvation, it is not a science book. It does not conflict with natural law.
---SLCGuy on 2/26/06

Brother John, that was a great answer. Eternity has no time. Very good point because people do set the time from eternity and count all the way through. Very good point to remember. I sometimes use, because I am use to it, infinite time, and many times I forget that others might not understand what I am saying. By breaking it down as you did clears the air.
---Lupe2618 on 2/24/06

Donna, that is not a dumb question.
Time did not exist as we know it until creation.

Time is an aberration of eternity. Time has a beginning and end; eternity does not.

So when God began the 6 literal days of creation, time began. After Christ's 1000 years-long reign, there will no longer be time.

Time therefore was created by God for humanity.
---John_T on 2/22/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause

John T and Eloy: This is probably a dumb question and maybe you already addressed it somehow. But how do you know how much time elapsed between the first 2 verses of Genesis ("in the beginning" and " the Spirit of God hovered over on the face of the waters" etc.) and verse 3 onward where God institutes the concept of " a day"?
---Donna on 2/22/06

SLCguy & everyone else, Sorry about my last post... forgot to take some words out as I was editing... (heavy sigh). Trying to do too many things at once... I hate when that happens. Perhaps Alan is rubbing off? ;o)
---daphn8897 on 2/22/06

And, SLCguy, You exercise "faith" every day time you flip a light switch, sit on a chair, go to sleep expecting to wake ... so, you probably have much more of a handle on what faith is than you think. It is the promissory/promissary.. note for that which is to come. Folks often purchase things sight unseen, but because of a note, sales receipt, or title, believe they have ownership. That my friend is faith. So, we believe what we do not see, because of the note of promise (the Bible).
---daphn8897 on 2/22/06

SLCguy, Check out Walter Brown's website. He's a PhD from MIT who believes there is credible evidence to support creation and the flood. His book is "In the Beginning, Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood." You might be enlightened. By the way, I think it takes far more faith to believe in evolution that it does creation and the Creator. Remember Billy Preston's hit... "Nothing from nothing leaves nothing... you gotta have something...
---daphn8897 on 2/22/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals

Your analysis MAY have a flaw. It assumes a chain link structure, not an telescoping time span.

For example, some conservative scholars postulate that Methuselah died before or the same year of the Flood. This greately condenses your time frame.

Doing this is how Bishop Usser came up with 6000 years.
---John_T on 2/22/06

SLCguy-Hope you didn't think I was offended yesterday (your comment came right after my post). You have interesting things to say. I've worked in a medical field all my life and really like science. I'm a Christian and love God's Word, too. I'll watch this year- counting effort with interest too, but won't join in.
---Donna on 2/22/06

Eloy; I suggest on summer vacation you never visit the Grand Canyon.

This complete denial of objective reality (in some) calling itself faith I have never understood and will probably will never understand. If one 'believes' the earth is only 10,000 or 6,000 or 600 years old then ALL education, would have to be avoided. It is irrationality, 'cognative dissonance' calling itself faith.
---SLCGuy on 2/22/06

The world was created in 10,194 B.C., and Adam was created in 4194 B.C.

Moderator - Thanks for the detailed information. I have not looked at the scriptures for the 6,000 prior to Adam, however I have never heard that interpretation either?
---Eloy on 2/22/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting

2a: Beginning 6000 years up to Adam (1000 to 1 ratio, Genesis 1:1,26,31; Psalm 90:4; II Peter 3:8)
Adam at 130 years had Seth (Genesis 5:3)
Seth at 105 Enosh (Genesis 5:6)
Enosh at 90 Kenan (Genesis 5:9)
Kenan 70 Mahalaliel (Genesis 5:12)
Mahalaliel 65 Iered (Genesis 5:15)
---Eloy on 2/22/06

2b: Iered 162 Henoch (lived a godly life; raptured at 365 years old, Genesis 5:18,24)
Henoch 65 Methuselah (Genesis 5:21)
Methuselah 187 Lamech (Genesis 5:25)
Lamech 182 Noah (Genesis 5:28,29)
Noah 500 Sem, Ham, Japheth (Genesis 5:32)
Flood 100 (Genesis 7:6)
7656 years
---Eloy on 2/22/06

3a: Flood for 1 year + 10 days (Genesis 7:11; 8:13,14)
Sem after 2 years had Arpachshad at 100 years old, after the flood (Genesis 11:10)
Arpachshad at 35 Shelah (Genesis 11:12)
Shelah at 30 Eber (Genesis 11:14)
Eber 34 Peleg (Genesis 11:16)
---Eloy on 2/22/06

3b: Peleg 30 Reu (Genesis 11:18)
Reu 32 Serug (Genesis 11:20)
Serug 30 Nahor (Genesis 11:22)
Nahor 29 Terah (Genesis 11:24)
Terah 70 Abram, Nahor, Haran 11:26)
Abraham 100 Izhak (Genesis 21:5)
393 years + 10 days
---Eloy on 2/22/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers

4: Izhak at 60 years had Iaakob (Genesis 25:26)
Iaakob at 91 Ioseph [Ioseph at 30 + 7 plenty years + 2 famine years (Genesis 41:46-57; 45:6)= 39; Iaakob at 130 goes into Egypt (Genesis 46:1-7; 47:6-9) 39= 91]
Ioseph at 39 years when Iaakob (Israel) goes into Egypt [Ioseph at 30 + 7 plenty years + 2 famine years (Genesis 190 years 41:46-57; 45:6)= 39; Iaakob at 130 goes into Egypt (Genesis 46:1-7; 47:6-11) 39= 91]
---Eloy on 2/22/06

5: 430 years= Israels lodging in Egypt, then Exodus (Exodus 12:40,41; Galatians 3:17)
480 years= From Israels Exodus to the 1st building of the Temple, in Salomons 4th year of his reign (I Kings 6:1)
---Eloy on 2/22/06

7a:Athalia the Queen 7 (II Kings 11:1-4,20,21)
Ioas 40 (II Kings 12:1,20,21)
Amasias 29 (II Kings 14:2,20,21)
Ozias 52 (II Kings 15:2,7)
Ioatham 16 (II Kings 15:33,38)
Achas 16 (II Kings 16:2,20)
Ezechias 29 (II Kings 18:2; 20:21)
---Eloy on 2/22/06

7b: Manasses 55 (II Kings 21:1,18)
Amon 2 (II Kings 21:19,26)
Iosias 31 (II Kings 22:1; 23:30)
Ioachas 3 months (II Kings 23:31,34)
Eliacim 11 (II Kings 23:36; 24:6)
Joachim (Iechonias) 3 months (II Kings 24:8,15,16)
419 years, 6 months= From 1st building of the Temple to the captivity of Babylon.
---Eloy on 2/22/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce

8: 70 years= Captivity in Babylon (II Chronicles 36:21;Jeremiah 25:11; 29:10)
Cyrus 1st year= Israel restored to freedom, 2nd yr Cyrus rebuild Temple(II Chron. 36:22- Ezra 1:1-4)
46 = Temple rebuilt the 6th year of Dairius (Ezra 6:14,15; John 2:20)
26 = Dairius 20 yr 6 yr= 14; add 12 yrs Nehemiah (Nehemiah 5:14)
143 years= From captivity of Babylon to Ierusalem rebuilt.
---Eloy on 2/22/06

9: 483 years= From Decree to rebuild Jerusalem to coming Messiah (69 weeks= 69 x 7 years, Daniel 9:25)

Total years= 7656 + 393 + 190 + 430 + 480 + 419 + 143 + 483= 10,194 B.C.
---Eloy on 2/22/06

I must be offending.
---SLCGuy on 2/21/06

DNA evidence is amazingly reliable. Much more than any existing "dating" methods of archeologists. That's because DNA can be tested multiple times and the number of "specimens" (i.e. humans)is limitless. But how can we ever replicate the effects of thousands of years in time and climatic conditions? So far there are too many unknowns. The Divine Author of Genesis might have elaborated on land bridges and races, but He wasn't writing a science textbook. That wasn't His purpose.
---Donna on 2/21/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry

This talk of 'ages' and 'early man' is all theory. It is better to be ignorant in the knowledge of man than the Word. 'Science' is the wisdom of man at its most seductive. Our church has a program in line with the state on how to homeschool. If college exists in my childrens future, it is Bible College.
---MikeM on 2/21/06

I have education in the sciences, but no degree.(Mod- Last time I looked I did not have the proper 'fixin's' to be someone named Niki. The only post I have seen by a Niki she was upset about her parents. My parents are pushing up the flowers).

Moderator - It caught my attention because you both use the same sentence structure and misspellings as well as having the same issues with various Christian groups.
---SLCGuy on 2/21/06

Truth is, none of us have been around for over 100 years. Even 100 year old science can very easily be wrong. Like the end of times debate, so many trying to decide exactly what will happen and when - who needs it?
-- Titus 3:9 --
p.s. I am guilty of this one at times.
---mike on 2/21/06

I believe God created everything as Genesis says. Doesn't matter how many years ago. That information is not central to my faith. But I do get tired of educators calling the theory of evolution "scientific". The theory of evolution can never be proved, because scientific proof requires that the same conditions produce the same results ALWAYS. It must be duplicable. Creation is a one time event. But then, Genesis doesn't have to be "science" for me to believe it.
---Donna on 2/21/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture

Phil: You indicate you have knowledge not recorded in the Bible about God's creation. Would you please tell us in what manor (domain, house, etc.) did He do it? Did you really mean to say "manner" (way)?
---Leon on 2/21/06

Cliff; I reference Harold Blooms 'The Book Of 'J' It has long been known two strains, two creation stories existed. The 'E'-(Elohiem) is 'out of time'-meaning a non time/space reference. The 'J'(Yahweh) strain is. The Jerusalem Bible, and a few other versions show the seperation.
---SLCGuy on 2/21/06

DNA blueprinting is an ongoing project. It is known that MOST American Indians are asiatic. They came over a land bridge, or by boat from Asia during the last ice age, which ended 12,000 years ago. In Southern Ca the the 'oldest' Native American found is about 9,000 years old, from the Salton Sea area. We send people to prison on DNA evidence, We do not send people to prison based on theories. Would you serve on a jury using DNA evidence?

Moderator - SLCGuy are you Niki?
---SLCGuy on 2/21/06

'Evolutionist" are in reference to biologist. Do you deny the existence of palentology, archeology, geology, morphology, scatology? From my window I can see glacial loess (siltstone) and cirques left on the mountians from the last ice age (Wisconsin glaciation) which ended 12,000 BC, Should I not look out the window to protect faith?
---SLCGuy on 2/21/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops

God controls time, and 1 day to God in heaven equals 1,000 years on earth to man. Recall how he has made perfectly fermented and aged wine from water in an instant. According to scripture the world was created in 10,194 B.C., and Adam was created in 4194 B.C.

Moderator - Big picture how did you get the 10,194 date?
---Eloy on 2/21/06

I believe that the earth is only thousands of years old, not hundreds or millions, but thousands. God hides the exact age on purpose. I also believe, though, that you should not just study one side of any subject. How can you truly know God with out knowing about satan? How can you understand love without understanding hate? How can you form a belief in creation without listening to the other theories? Creation is proven over and over again with no loop holes. can you say that about the theories? NOPE!
---Tabitha on 2/21/06

SLCGuy; The last time I pointed this out I got poo-pooed. The P group says (gen 1.1-2.3) that the order of creation was plants.animals,man ,woman. the J group says (gen2.4-25) man,plants ,animals woman. and there's many more! Same creation, different perseptions. Interesting!
---1st_cliff on 2/20/06

[Pt.2] 58,ooo years old! Why is that significant? Because they're supposed to be many hundreds of millions if not more! So how is it possible? No contamination theories here! Though I believe there are other factors which reduce these findings to only 10,ooo or less, what is your explanation now?
---Daniel on 2/20/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer

[Pt.1] SLCguy: I'm tired of hearing people say 'we _know_ earth is billions years old' when dating methods, based on assumptions, arrive at varying dates differing by huge amounts! Contamination they say! Well, we've finally tested for C-14 in diamonds, which was preposterous for evolutionists, *yet C-14 is still there!* Diamonds, with possibly the toughest bonding on the planet, deep inside Precambrian layers, have been measured by the evolutionist's own dating methods and labs to be less than... [cont.]
---danie9374 on 2/20/06

The first books of Genesis say that God made the Universe, and the systems by wich it works, the World, and all that is in it, including us. It is not a text book description of how He did it.
---alan8869_of_UK on 2/20/06

I could not agree more. On these blogs I read so-called 'Christians' who believe anything, blending scripture and man. That is why I homeschool.
---RobertW on 2/20/06

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.