[_ Old Earth _] For the Christians... can you change?

[jmm9683]

Both, for example they found many chariots at the bottom of the red sea. They think the y found noahs ark, Evidence for a found is all around you. etc etc

People claimed that they found chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea, but that hasn't been substantiated. Most of what they claimed to have found is believed to be coral. Also there was supposedly an 8-spoked wheel that was found, but that has been identified as being used only during the 18th Dynasty of ancient Egypt around 1400 BC.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=33168

If you are referring to the 2006 expedition that claims to have found petrified wooden beams with fossilized sea animals on it in the Alborz Mountains in Iran, they have also not have been substantiated. The team consisted of no archaeologists or geologists first off. And one of the team members claimed that the finds verified by a lab but wouldn't give a name. Another one of the team members doesn't even believe it to be from the ark, but from "a basalt dike."

Besides that one, there have been numerous proven hoaxes of the ark, such as the 1993 CBS special that had the claims of George Jammal showing "sacred wood from the ark." Jammal later revealed that the wood was from railroad tracks in California and hardened by cooking it with sauces in the oven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark

 

[Bryce]

Lets stay on topic here, its irrelevant to either side whether there were chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea or not.

 

[Jayls5]

What qualitative/quantitative empirical scientific data would convince you that you are wrong about something you consider an absolute by the bible?

It doesn't even have to be significant like the existence of God himself, but I'd really like to see some things that would convince you your interpretation of a certain passage was wrong.

What empirical evidence can you offer that anything in the bible isn't true?
Why do you want to convince someone they are wrong?

I don't want to convince someone they are wrong so much as I'd like to point someone in the right direction. It's supposed to be a positive experience, not a negative "haha you are wrong" type of thing. I only begin to do that once they demonstrate that mentality to me, and I give them a little "respect" based on Kant's ethical system by doing the same back.

I honestly don't even know where to begin on your first question, and frankly, it belongs in another thread.

The purpose of this thread is to find out who would actually be convinced that their interpretation of the bible was incorrect, and what would change their view specifically.

There doesn't seem to be much of a response so far.

 

[DavidLee]

What qualitative/quantitative empirical scientific data would convince you that you are wrong about something you consider an absolute by the bible?

It doesn't even have to be significant like the existence of God himself, but I'd really like to see some things that would convince you your interpretation of a certain passage was wrong.

What empirical evidence can you offer that anything in the bible isn't true?
Why do you want to convince someone they are wrong?

I don't want to convince someone they are wrong so much as I'd like to point someone in the right direction. It's supposed to be a positive experience, not a negative "haha you are wrong" type of thing. I only begin to do that once they demonstrate that mentality to me, and I give them a little "respect" based on Kant's ethical system by doing the same back.

I honestly don't even know where to begin on your first question, and frankly, it belongs in another thread.

The purpose of this thread is to find out who would actually be convinced that their interpretation of the bible was incorrect, and what would change their view specifically.

There doesn't seem to be much of a response so far.

What kind of response did you expect? Most of us have based our opinions on what we believe to be correct information (actually most people are like this, even you).
If you can't answer my first question then you should not have asked yours.
By all means, please begin pointing us in the right direction (with empirical evidence).

 

[Jayls5]

What kind of response did you expect? Most of us have based our opinions on what we believe to be correct information (actually most people are like this, even you).
If you can't answer my first question then you should not have asked yours.
By all means, please begin pointing us in the right direction (with empirical evidence).

I expected a response that would answer my question in the first post instead of evasive questioning asking me to prove things incorrect about the bible. You're evading even hypothetical scenarios about you being wrong, and that's very telling.

There is a ton of stuff that can be argued about the bible, but it has no place in this thread. Frankly, I wouldn't want to discuss it with you anyway if you were unwilling to admit any possibility of empirical data changing your interpretation of the bible.

 

[John]

I would say that because the physical evidance gives me reason to believe in god i.e sediment layers

If these evidences were missing i would have nothing to go on but faith.

 

[Patashu]

I would say that because the physical evidance gives me reason to believe in god i.e sediment layers

If these evidences were missing i would have nothing to go on but faith.

Would a global flood not have a global, uninterrupted sediment layer? What can we see that can't be explained by multiple floods in different places at different times that can be explained by a single great whooping one?

 

[DavidLee]

What kind of response did you expect? Most of us have based our opinions on what we believe to be correct information (actually most people are like this, even you).
If you can't answer my first question then you should not have asked yours.
By all means, please begin pointing us in the right direction (with empirical evidence).

I expected a response that would answer my question in the first post instead of evasive questioning asking me to prove things incorrect about the bible. You're evading even hypothetical scenarios about you being wrong, and that's very telling.

I'm sorry you read my post as being evasive. That was not my intent.

There is a ton of stuff that can be argued about the bible, but it has no place in this thread. Frankly, I wouldn't want to discuss it with you anyway if you were unwilling to admit any possibility of empirical data changing your interpretation of the bible.

This statement does not surprise me at all.
This discussion is going nowhere. Sorry to have intruded on your thread.

 

[Jayls5]

This statement does not surprise me at all.
This discussion is going nowhere. Sorry to have intruded on your thread.

Well, in all seriousness, that's what I'm addressing.

Who will not let a discussion and new evidence change their mind? Having a strong opinion is fine, but keeping a position regardless of evidence eliminates the purpose of a discussion. We discuss to learn, debate ideas, and weigh which position has more merit. We don't talk merely to convince the other side; I have no interest in talking with someone like that.

 

[BobRyan]

What qualitative/quantitative empirical scientific data would convince you that you are wrong about something you consider an absolute by the bible?

If the subject is atheist darwinism vs the Bible then --

1. The data for change you see would not be found in the junk-science religion that we know of today as atheist darwinism.

2. It would be something like - SHOWING that lower life forms today are in fact evolving in true darwinian saltation fashion into higher life forms. (Showing that Colin Patterson was wrong when he observed that STORIES about one thing changing into another are just STORIES easy enough to tell "but they are NOT science").

3. It would be in SHOWING that life arises "out of rocks" with two forms of proof.
a. That it CAN be ARTIFICIALLY manipulated
b. That it can be SHOWN to happen in nature.

Obviously mixing a very unlikely set of chemicals under unlikely conditions can be done to get a preciptant that is desired (Salt being made in outerspace for example). That is much different than showing that it HAPPENS in nature.

Be that as it may - you still need to artificually acheive what you claim can happen without your help at all.

--------------

If the question is "do Christians accept better Bible evidence" -- it is proven in that Catholics became Protesting-Catholics and then Lutherans and then Baptists over time.

Christians do change their views on Bible doctrine - become more correct over time.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I would say that because the physical evidance gives me reason to believe in god i.e sediment layers

If these evidences were missing i would have nothing to go on but faith.

Would a global flood not have a global, uninterrupted sediment layer? What can we see that can't be explained by multiple floods in different places at different times that can be explained by a single great whooping one?

Sea life at the highest mountain tops REQUIRE something MORE than a "local flash flood" --- obviously.

Bob

 

[jmm9683]

I would say that because the physical evidance gives me reason to believe in god i.e sediment layers

If these evidences were missing i would have nothing to go on but faith.

Would a global flood not have a global, uninterrupted sediment layer? What can we see that can't be explained by multiple floods in different places at different times that can be explained by a single great whooping one?

Sea life at the highest mountain tops REQUIRE something MORE than a "local flash flood" --- obviously.

Bob

Fossils of sea life on mountains do not prove a worldwide flood:

1. The marine fossils in question have been found deep INSIDE layers of rock in the mountaintops, not "on" them. This clearly suggests that they were laid down and buried deep before the mountains themselves were raised and formed and NOT deposited there by floodwaters as the argument implies.
2. The most mountain ranges on continents were formed by tectonic forces resulting from collision of continental plates. In some cases these forces uplifted oceanic seafloor and formed mountain ranges, containing sea fossils, out of it. Notably, this process takes millions of years and patterns of wear and rock layers in the mountains confirm this sort of timeline.
3.If the seashells were carried to the top of mountains by the Great Flood, as suggested by Creationists, they would be smashed to pieces, separated from their corresponding valves (if bivalve, prosobranch, or brachiopod), or heavily eroded, and not be embedded in the rock of the mountains.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Sea_fos ... untaintops

 

[BobRyan]

Sea life at the highest mountain tops REQUIRE something MORE than a "local flash flood" --- obviously.
Bob

Fossils of sea life on mountains do not prove a worldwide flood:

1. The marine fossils in question have been found deep INSIDE layers of rock in the mountaintops, not "on" them. This clearly suggests that they were laid down and buried deep before the mountains themselves were raised and formed and NOT deposited there by floodwaters as the argument implies

Facts please -- not conjecture.

"Sea shells found ON TOP of Mt Everest"
http://classic.mountainzone.com/everest/science.stm

2. The most mountain ranges on continents were formed by tectonic forces resulting from collision of continental plates. In some cases these forces uplifted oceanic seafloor and formed mountain ranges, containing sea fossils, out of it.

1. We have not seen one single mountain with sea shells on the top - rise out of the ocean -- no not even ONE.

2. No story so far explains sea shells on Everest while the rest of the world is dry.

3. No story so far explains how volcanoes rising up from plate tectonic boundaries would have anything but lava flow evidence at the top -- not sea shells.

The point remains.

And your answer gives rise to another point -- why go to all the story-telling lengths to try to get out of the obvious point that the Bible is "correct"???


What is the "incentive" for a christian to embrace empty desperate "story telling" efforts to explain fossils on top of Everest?? (since this is supposedly a Christian thread)

Bob

 

[proponent]

What qualitative/quantitative empirical scientific data would convince you that you are wrong about something you consider an absolute by the bible?

If the subject is atheist darwinism vs the Bible then --

1. The data for change you see would not be found in the junk-science religion that we know of today as atheist darwinism.

2. It would be something like - SHOWING that lower life forms today are in fact evolving in true darwinian saltation fashion into higher life forms. (Showing that Colin Patterson was wrong when he observed that STORIES about one thing changing into another are just STORIES easy enough to tell "but they are NOT science").

3. It would be in SHOWING that life arises "out of rocks" with two forms of proof.
a. That it CAN be ARTIFICIALLY manipulated
b. That it can be SHOWN to happen in nature.

Obviously mixing a very unlikely set of chemicals under unlikely conditions can be done to get a preciptant that is desired (Salt being made in outerspace for example). That is much different than showing that it HAPPENS in nature.

Be that as it may - you still need to artificually acheive what you claim can happen without your help at all.

--------------

If the question is "do Christians accept better Bible evidence" -- it is proven in that Catholics became Protesting-Catholics and then Lutherans and then Baptists over time.

Christians do change their views on Bible doctrine - become more correct over time.

Bob

Neither of those assertatons are correct. The question is weather or not you would believe such evidence if it arose, not weather or not such evidence is likely to arise. I would accept that my perception of gravity is wrong if I found an orb with a density greater than air floating there with no explanation (propulsion, bernoulli effect (sp?)) Would you believe that the bible has false information if it was ABSOLUTELY proven or would you consider to believe based on faith alone?

 

[Barbarian]

...Now the flaming of Akaanga's torch drew near in the night; and the
misshapen hands groped in the meshes of the net; and they took the
missionary between the finger and the thumb, and bore him dripping
in the night and silence to the place of the ovens of Miru. And
there was Miru, ruddy in the glow of the ovens; and there sat her
four daughters, and made the kava of the dead; and there sat the
comers out of the islands of the living, dripping and lamenting.

This was a dread place to reach for any of the sons of men. But of
all who ever came there, the missionary was the most concerned;
and, to make things worse, the person next him was a convert of his
own.

"Aha," said the convert, "so you are here like your neighbours?
And how about all your stories?"

"It seems," said the missionary, with bursting tears, "that there
was nothing in them."

By this the kava of the dead was ready, and the daughters of Miru
began to intone in the old manner of singing. "Gone are the green
islands and the bright sea, the sun and the moon and the forty
million stars, and life and love and hope. Henceforth is no more,
only to sit in the night and silence, and see your friends
devoured; for life is a deceit, and the bandage is taken from your
eyes."

Now when the singing was done, one of the daughters came with the
bowl. Desire of that kava rose in the missionary's bosom; he
lusted for it like a swimmer for the land, or a bridegroom for his
bride; and he reached out his hand, and took the bowl, and would
have drunk. And then he remembered, and put it back.

"Drink!" sang the daughter of Miru.

"There is no kava like the kava of the dead, and to drink of it
once is the reward of living."

"I thank you. It smells excellent," said the missionary. "But I
am a blue-ribbon man myself; and though I am aware there is a
difference of opinion even in our own confession, I have always
held kava to be excluded."

"What!" cried the convert. "Are you going to respect a taboo at a
time like this? And you were always so opposed to taboos when you
were alive!"

"To other people's," said the missionary. "Never to my own."

"But yours have all proved wrong," said the convert.

"It looks like it," said the missionary, "and I can't help that.
No reason why I should break my word."

"I never heard the like of this!" cried the daughter of Miru.
"Pray, what do you expect to gain?"

"That is not the point," said the missionary. "I took this pledge
for others, I am not going to break it for myself."

The daughter of Miru was puzzled; she came and told her mother, and
Miru was vexed; and they went and told Akaanga. "I don't know what
to do about this," said Akaanga; and he came and reasoned with the
missionary.

"But there IS such a thing as right and wrong," said the
missionary; "and your ovens cannot alter that."

"Give the kava to the rest," said Akaanga to the daughters of Miru.
"I must get rid of this sea-lawyer instantly, or worse will come of
it."

The next moment the missionary came up in the midst of the sea, and
there before him were the palm trees of the island. He swam to the
shore gladly, and landed. Much matter of thought was in that
missionary's mind.

"I seem to have been misinformed upon some points," said he.
"Perhaps there is not much in it, as I supposed; but there is
something in it after all. Let me be glad of that."

And he rang the bell for service.

MORAL.

The sticks break, the stones crumble,
The eternal altars tilt and tumble,
Sanctions and tales dislimn like mist
About the amazed evangelist.
He stands unshook from age to youth
Upon one pin-point of the truth.
Robert Lewis Stevenson

 

[Patashu]

Sea life at the highest mountain tops REQUIRE something MORE than a "local flash flood" --- obviously.
Bob

Fossils of sea life on mountains do not prove a worldwide flood:

1. The marine fossils in question have been found deep INSIDE layers of rock in the mountaintops, not "on" them. This clearly suggests that they were laid down and buried deep before the mountains themselves were raised and formed and NOT deposited there by floodwaters as the argument implies

Facts please -- not conjecture.

"Sea shells found ON TOP of Mt Everest"
http://classic.mountainzone.com/everest/science.stm

I went to your link and apparently the site considers it to be evidence for plate tectonics too:
http://classic.mountainzone.com/everest ... -xsect.stm
Why do you accept the evidence but not the conclusion? The graphic is also pointing to a point that is deep inside the mountain thus formed.

[quote:90aa3]
2. The most mountain ranges on continents were formed by tectonic forces resulting from collision of continental plates. In some cases these forces uplifted oceanic seafloor and formed mountain ranges, containing sea fossils, out of it.

1. We have not seen one single mountain with sea shells on the top - rise out of the ocean -- no not even ONE.[/quote:90aa3]
That's because the process of forming an entire mountain takes millions of years; if we could observe such a thing happen over one man's lifetime it would break all known laws of physics.
What we can measure is the gradual movement (in millimeters per year) of all the continental plates, plus we can measure the gradually increasing height of mountains as they are pushed up by two plates pushing them together.
Again: If we could SEE a mountain rise up from the ocean during one man's lifetime it would not support plate tectonics because plates are not predicted to move that fast.

2. No story so far explains sea shells on Everest while the rest of the world is dry.

Are you trying to say no other mountain has sealife fossils embedded in it?

3. No story so far explains how volcanoes rising up from plate tectonic boundaries would have anything but lava flow evidence at the top -- not sea shells.

You're trying to say...what? Plate tectonics doesn't explain volcanoes?

The point remains.

And your answer gives rise to another point -- why go to all the story-telling lengths to try to get out of the obvious point that the Bible is "correct"???

They're not stories if they conform to all known lines of evidence, are they? I'm sorry if reality happens to conflict with the bible, but that doesn't mean reality is wrong.

What is the "incentive" for a christian to embrace empty desperate "story telling" efforts to explain fossils on top of Everest?? (since this is supposedly a Christian thread)

Bob

I'd imagine there's a huge incentive to conform to what is real and true.

 

[freeway]

The question is, is there or can there ever be evidence to make a true Jesus believing Christian change his or her mind on God, creation, Jesus, salvation, and the living word of God the Bible. Well I can say from personal experience no. Bible prophecy is coming true right before our eyes. I've studies evolution before coming to Christ.. I even tried believing that we got here by spacemen a long long time ago..but no hard proof has been found of that either. Just as in evolution we have drawings of the Nebraska man form a single tooth. We have the Lucy missing link, and on and on it goes jumping to conclusions or making up stories with the hope of finding facts, always saying there's tons of evidence but never showing it and closing the case. If evolution could be proven 100% without a doubt, then Christianity would be dead. Men who oppose God have been trying to do just that very thing since, well since forever. Evolution just like Christianity is based mainly on faith bits and pieces of evidence will only bring us to a point and then we have to make a choice, and rely on faith. Even Jesus said have "faith." Well as for me, I will die a believing Christian, Jesus wont let me go..

 

[Patashu]

The question is, is there or can there ever be evidence to make a true Jesus believing Christian change his or her mind on God, creation, Jesus, salvation, and the living word of God the Bible. Well I can say from personal experience no.

Biblical christianity is an unfalsifiable viewpoint you say? If nothing can prove it wrong how can you know it's right?
As a hypothetical situation, let's say you were living in a universe with no judeo-christian god ruling over it, and you asked yourself 'Was this universe formed and governed by a judeo-christian god?' and set out to uncover evidence to prove or disprove yourself. What findings would give evidence to and strengthen this hypothesis? What findings would weaken this hypothesis and falsify it?
If the answer to either question is 'nothing' or the answer to both questions is the same, then the question 'does the judeo-christian concept of God exist' cannot be answered and thus cannot be known with any certainity or uncertainity.
If a 'true christian' cannot be swayed by any amount of falsifying evidence then how are they a reliable measure of the truthfulness of their religion, and how is their state any different from being programmed or brainwashed? The entire part of holding views is to do so tenably, subject to revision in the face of disconfirming evidence so that one's views are always most applicable; this means not only being able to hold them but give them away.

Bible prophecy is coming true right before our eyes.

You have to remember that man can be mistaken on anything, and that includes you. Any impression or observation you make could be a delusion, and you have to watch out for this by never cementing a belief in for the long haul. Haven't you ever thought you heard or saw or remembered something but later found out you missaw, misheard, misread, misrecalled?

I've studies evolution before coming to Christ.. I even tried believing that we got here by spacemen a long long time ago..but no hard proof has been found of that either.

'got here by spacemen'? What does that have to do with evolution, or was it a non sequitur?

Just as in evolution we have drawings of the Nebraska man form a single tooth.

So because one scientist was mistakenly wrong once and later corrected over it, no evidence from any scientist working in the field of evolution can be trusted ever again? That's not how science works

We have the Lucy missing link, and on and on it goes jumping to conclusions or making up stories with the hope of finding facts, always saying there's tons of evidence but never showing it and closing the case.

There's plenty of evidence if you'd care to look. Would you like some sources, if you are still able to open your mind to new material for consideration?

If evolution could be proven 100% without a doubt, then Christianity would be dead.

Again, human infallibility plus incomplete information, we have not studied in 100% detail everything that has ever happened and never will, ensures that nothing can ever be known for 100% fact. This is why science exists, as a model and a tool to help us decide from incomplete information and possibly erring humans which theory explains a set of phenomenon best.
No one tries to prove evolution 100% without a doubt, only present evidence that fits with the model, showing its predictive capabilities and ability to structure, explain and organize biological phenomena. For example, what is the creationist explanation for the origin of hiccups?

Men who oppose God have been trying to do just that very thing since, well since forever.

What about the theistic evolutionists?

Evolution just like Christianity is based mainly on faith bits and pieces of evidence

So you're now claiming that christianity has just as shaky a standard as what you've just presented as your view on evolution? Do you really mean to demean your religion like this? Why is it so good to 'show' that evolution is a religion when you follow one too?

will only bring us to a point and then we have to make a choice, and rely on faith. Even Jesus said have "faith." Well as for me, I will die a believing Christian, Jesus wont let me go..

You can have your faith, but faith can't decide things. For example, if two bible-believing christians make contradictory claims based on their faith alone, would you use faith or evidence and reason to distinguish which claim is the factual one?

 

[Barbarian]

Of course we know that the Himalayas arose from elevated seafloor. The mountains are made of marine fossils. And the uplift is still going on, and is being measured, as India continues to push northward into asia.

None of this is a threat to the beliefs of any orthodox Christian. Creationists have a hard time with it, but not the majority of us.

 

[freeway]

[quote="Patashu"
Biblical christianity is an unfalsifiable viewpoint you say? If nothing can prove it wrong how can you know it's right?

You can't prove it wrong thats my point...They have been trying for thousands of years...

As a hypothetical situation, let's say you were living in a universe with no judeo-christian god

This has been aswered over and over again.. Ok lets say hypothetically we live in a world that has no evolutionist in it then this kind of question would not even exist.. Oh by the way someday we will....."faith"

You have to remember that man can be mistaken on anything, and that includes you. Any impression or observation you make could be a delusion, and you have to watch out for this by never cementing a belief in for the long haul. Haven't you ever thought you heard or saw or remembered something but later found out you missaw, misheard, misread, misrecalled?

Yes "man" can and has.. but not God, Jesus said believe in me and also the Father and you will be saved... He did not mention anything about evolution, but did say there is deceivers out in the world to lead you astray..To know the word of God is the best defense against this Satan filled lie.

r?

[quote:6e7d4]Just as in evolution we have drawings of the Nebraska man form a single tooth.

So because one scientist was mistakenly wrong once and later corrected over it, no evidence from any scientist working in the field of evolution can be trusted ever again? That's not how science works[/quote:6e7d4]

well you know what if it was just one scientist that was wrong ok lets overlook that mistake, but when you have scientist over and over again telling you the same things but in a different wrapper, that sounds like somebody is wanting somebody to believe them just at their word.

[quote:6e7d4]We have the Lucy missing link, and on and on it goes jumping to conclusions or making up stories with the hope of finding facts, always saying there's tons of evidence but never showing it and closing the case.

There's plenty of evidence if you'd care to look. Would you like some sources, if you are still able to open your mind to new material for consideration?[/quote:6e7d4]

open my mind, no you mean turn my back on what I believe and have studied, just because you think its true,,, No, open you heart, stop trying to put everything in a nice neat little box. Because God will never fit in there...

Again, human infallibility plus incomplete information, we have not studied in 100% detail everything that has ever happened and never will, ensures that nothing can ever be known for 100% fact. This is why science exists, as a model and a tool to help us decide from incomplete information and possibly erring humans which theory explains a set of phenomenon best.
No one tries to prove evolution 100% without a doubt, only present evidence that fits with the model, showing its predictive capabilities and ability to structure, explain and organize biological phenomena. For example, what is the creationist explanation for the origin of hiccups?

yes thats what science so be, but its not. When science takes a leap of faith to draw a conclusion that is pure speculation, well it just became a religion..... as in "evolution" and a 4.5 billion year earth etc...

[quote:6e7d4]Men who oppose God have been trying to do just that very thing since, well since forever.

What about the theistic evolutionists?[/quote:6e7d4]
well that another can of worms, that I don't want to get into right now...later

[quote:6e7d4]Evolution just like Christianity is based mainly on faith bits and pieces of evidence

So you're now claiming that Christianity has just as shaky a standard as what you've just presented as your view on evolution? Do you really mean to demean your religion like this? Why is it so good to 'show' that evolution is a religion when you follow one too?[/quote:6e7d4]

Never said or ever will say Christianity is shaky ... your words....evolution 100% religion.. sorry but if the fact can't be proven 100% well we have a new religion...

[quote:6e7d4]will only bring us to a point and then we have to make a choice, and rely on faith. Even Jesus said have "faith." Well as for me, I will die a believing Christian, Jesus wont let me go..

You can have your faith, but faith can't decide things. For example, if two bible-believing christians make contradictory claims based on their faith alone, would you use faith or evidence and reason to distinguish which claim is the factual one?[/quote:6e7d4]

thats what faith is all about, believe in something that can't be 100% proven, but if I right "which I am, because God's word says so" then I have everything to gain... nothing to lose..
If your right, I hope I evolve into a tiger... If your wrong and you are,,, there's everything to lose for eternity..... trying reading what Jesus says,

sorry did not proof read if I misspelled words... oops