Good in its Purest Form?
Did the Apostles Understand?
How do we Know We Are Saved?
Who Are the Jews and Gentiles?
Contradictions in the Concordant Bible
More: To Hell and Back
Fallen Angels?
You Will Surely Die?
Why did Christ Suffer and Die?
Sick and Disgusting Fable!
Please Don't Stop Writing!

Are We Puppets?

My Brother L. Ray Smith

Are you aware of what Adam and Adam had while still in the garden of Eden? They had something that we do not have today! Although we are starting to learn about it.

Do I have your attention yet? What they had, I can only dream of having. They knew what good is without knowing evil, good in it's purest form!

Most of us today can't even imagine what that would be like. Most people use evil to know what is good, and good to know what evil is, is this not so? I learned this from the book of Genesis, and yes they were both named Adam! Gen. 5: 2, " Male and female created he them; and called their name Adam, in the day they were created". Then we look at Gen. 3: 20, "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living".

Back to good without evil isn't this one of the more important things that JESUS wanted us to learn. How are we able to judge what is good or righteous if we are not pure of heart by walking in the the steps of CHRIST, until we learn what purity is we cannot walk in it. Without purity of heart with the Holy Spirit working in us we can do nothing with JESUS, we have never been able to do anything for Him, He owns it all, and keeps it all in place by His might. So when we work at being pure of heart, He is able to work through us in His pure Love. And this right were we are at, as we are growing in Him The Love of CHRIST is the most pure thing that we are able to grasp, that is why He gave us the 11th commandment in John 13: 34. "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another. 35, By this shall all know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." here in lies the purity of good without evil what in all creation is more pure than GOD'S Love.

This is the closest we can ever come to purity and, true good. Knowing GOD'S word will do nothing for a person, yet with His love we are given understanding, with understanding comes His knowledge, and with His knowledge comes decrement, and with decrement comes wisdom!

Just one more bit of information for you I am not a "Christian" I am however a disciple of CHRIST JESUS, as we are called disciples by JESUS close to 200 times, and I choose to go by what my Saviour called me not non believers!!!

I pray that this simple truth will be helpful to you in all that you undertake. I do agree with most of your writings, yet, not quite all sorry. I use your work many times I pray this will not upset you.

Your Brother in CHRIST

[Ray Replies]

Dear [omitted],

Thank you for your email and comments. And let me parrot your sentiments by saying: "I pray this will not upset YOU" what I have to say in response to your email. While I can certainly appreciate some of the statement you make, nonetheless, the premise of your email is in error.

You state: "What they had [Adam and Eve], I can only dream of having. They knew what good is without evil, good in it's purest form!"

Well, if what you want is what Adam and Eve had BEFORE they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then I have news for you:  You can stop dreaming.  You REALLY DO ALREADY HAVE what they had!!  That's right! Your ALREADY possess what they HAD! I have it too! But I am not as thrilled over this possession as much as you seem to think you would be if only you had it. You do have it, I have it, Hitler had it, Saddam STILL has it, in his jail cell in Iraq. ALL MANKIND HAS IT. It's called "THE CARNAL MIND," and it's not a pretty thing either: "For to be CARNALLY MINDED is DEATH; but to be spiritually minded is LIFE and PEACE.

Adam and Eve did not eat of the forbidden tree and disobey God because they were "spiritually minded" or because, "they knew what good is without knowing evil, good in it's purest form" as you suggest. THEY WERE TOTALLY CARNAL. The were 'NAKED'--This was not just a physical fact, it was a SPIRITUAL REALITY. They were spiritually NAKED just as everyone else who thinks they have sufficient spirituality to live righteously by their own carnal mind:

"Because you say, I am rich and increased with goods [they owned all in the garden; it was ALL FOR THEM] and have need of NOTHING [how could they have need of anything if they already possessed, "good in it's PUREST FORM' as you suggest? But there's was a problem with Adam and Eve just as there is with ALL OF US. We DO NOT possess proper knowledge {without the tree of the knowledge of good and evil}, and therefore we like Laodicea...] ... and KNOW NOT  that you are WRETCHED, and MISERABLE, and POOR, and BLIND, and [SPIRITUALLY] NAKED" (Rev. 3:17)!!!

If they already knew good (inside of their very spirit and innermost being), good in it's PUREST FORM, then how could ANYTHING, influence, persuade, cause, or MAKE them manifest the root causes of EVERY SIN ON EARTH?  Notice it carefully:

"And when the woman [1] SAW THAT THE TREE WAS GOOD FOR FOOD [lust of the flesh], and that it was [2] PLEASANT TO THE EYES [lust of the eyes], and a tree to be [3] DESIRED TO MAKE ONE WISE [pride of life], she TOOK [stole, disobeyed, lusted after the flesh, put an idol before God, worshiped her own presumed but false goodness, helped cause her husband to sin, hid themselves, LIED to God about it, tried to pass the buck and blame others for their sin, etc., etc., etc., and a dozen other sins] of the fruit thereof, and did eat..." (Gen. 3:6).

And so, were Adam and Eve REALLY "good without knowing evil?"  Did they really have "good in it's PUREST FORM?" Or did Eve having nothing but a spiritually naked and carnal mind that did NOT possess the love of God in any way, shape or form?  Let the Scriptures answer. Notice what Eve did:

  1. Lusted with her FLESH, wanting to EAT the forbidden fruit.
  2. Lusted with here EYES, because it seemed so pleasant to her carnal mind.
  3. Was filled with PRIDE, desiring worldly WISDOM.

Now let's compare Eve's sin with what John tells us are the three root CAUSES OF ALL SIN:

"Love not the world, neither the things are are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is NOT IN HIM.  For [here's the reason why] ALL that is in the world, [1] the LUST OF THE FLESH, and [2] the LUST OF THE EYES, and [3] the PRIDE OF LIFE, is not of the Father, but is of the world" (I John 2:15-16).

There we have the exact three sins of Eve!  And I assure you on the authority of Jesus Christ and the Word of God that these are NOT, 'good in it's purest form.' We must all be CRUCIFIED WITH CHRIST and then be CLOTHED WITH HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS, before we will have even a hint of "good in it's purest form."

There is no knowledge of good without a knowledge of evil! That is WHY God put both good AND evil IN THE SAME TREE; IN THE SAME FRUIT.!!

God be with you,



Why did Jesus tell his apostles to go out and baptize in his name and make disciples of all nations in Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15-18 after he died? If its because of what you explained previously then why did the apostles even do that since they had all understanding of the truth? (Luke 24:45, John 14:15-31) Is it to confuse us?

Because I'm certainly confused. It doesn't make sense to me yet as I feel I'm missing part of the picture here. Everything you write on the Lake of Fire, the salvation of all, etc. makes so much sense and is so BEAUTIFUL! But I'm confused by this baptism thing yet.

Thank you - you are sort of like a mentor!


[Ray Replies]

Dear Margaret:

I will try to help your understanding.

The Scriptures you reference, are true, but they don't exactly say what you think they say. You state:

"...then why did the apostles even do that since they had ALL UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRUTH? (Luke 24:45, John 14:15-31)."

Did they REALLY have "all understanding of the truth?"  NO, THEY DID NOT, neither do these verses say that they did. Notice, In verse 44 of Luke 24 Jesus tells His apostles about all that needed to be fulfilled in Moses and the prophets "concerning Me" He says. Not that they understood "ALL Scripture."  Jesus opened their understanding of the Scriptures, "CONCERNING ME." Not concerning EVERYTHING!

Now here is just one ABSOLUTE proof of what I just said, found in the very next two verses: 

"And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name AMONG ALL NATIONS, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:45-46).

Notice in your other reference of John 15:15-31, in verse 26 concerning the Comforter which had not as yet been given to the Apostles, "...he [it] SHALL [future tense] teach you all things..." Yet, when the Gentile Cornelius turned to God and requested Peter to come to his house, Peter RESISTED at first, not KNOWING OR REMEMBERING that Jesus said His gospel was to be preached "AMONG ALL [Gentile] NATIONS."

Were there things the Apostles did NOT know about Jesus and His message when they began the ministries?  Yes, Jesus Himself tells us so: 

"I have yet MANY THINGS to say unto you, but ye CANNOT bear them NOW."

And so, God revealed "many things" to his Apostles (including Paul) as they progressed in their ministries. They came together in Acts 15 (MANY YEARS AFTER Christ's resurrection) for the express purpose of settling issues within the ministry which were causing confusion, especially among the Jewish Converts. Not the least of these issues was whether the Law of Moses was to be kept or not (Acts 15:5). PRETTY BIG ISSUE not to have already been settled, wouldn't you say?

God be with you,


How do we know we are saved? If its of God and we can't do anything physical to obtain it, then how do we know? I don't mean I'd much rather rely on myself for my own salvation, I just want to know how everything works and you seem pretty darn wise since you have a few years ahead of me in bible-studying. (I'm 22!)


[Ray Replies]

Dear Margaret:

"How do we KNOW that we are saved?" Excellent question!  Would you believe that the Scriptures do not answer this specific question?  If they do, I am not aware of such an answer. The problem in answering this question is that you put it in the PAST TENSE--"How do we know that we ARE saved" which, I guess, could be in the past or present tense. Either way, I know of no Scripture that gives such an answer.

Here is what we do read regarding salvation:

"might save" "to save"  "shalt save" "save us" "shall be saved" "such as should be saved" "whereby we must be saved" "we shall be saved" "what must I do to be saved" etc., etc., etc.

And even those few verses that speak of "but unto us which ARE saved...." a closer look at the Greek shows that it is in the aiorist tense and should be translated "...which ARE BEING saved..." as it is not as yet a completed fact or act.

Even Ephesian 2:8 which states: "For by grace ARE you saved through faith...." which is properly translated with the word "are" than "are you being saved" or some other aiorist tense verb, still does not show that anyone is ALREADY saved. The phrase  "ARE saved" is telling us HOW we are saved, not WHEN we are saved. We "are" saved by grace just as people a century into the future also "ARE saved by grace." That's HOW they are saved, not WHEN.

If there were a verse that stated that we or anyone ARE or HAVE BEEN already saved, it would contradict many other Scriptures that show that salvation is an ongoing process.

This verse says it all: 

"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same SHALL BE saved" (Matt. 24:13). 

If this verse be absolutely true, can a statement that contradicts this statement of our Lord ALSO be true? Well, for example, "...he that shall NOT endure unto the end... ALSO be saved?"  See the contradiction?

Jesus says to him that OVERCOMES... seven time in Rev. 2 and 3. If the "overcoming" part is really not necessary, then why is it emphatically stated such SEVEN TIMES?

Is there a reason for not having a verse stating how one can know that they are absolutely SAVED [past tense] at some point in their lives?  I think so. We can NEVER STOP overcoming, striving, pressing on, following after, etc. We can have CONFIDENCE AND HOPE that we will be saved if we continue in our present total devotion to God, but never in this life can we say that we "ARE saved" already, in the past tense.

God has not, however, left us with assurances that we can absolutely bank on, if we follow His admonitions. Here is just one:

"And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brother kindness charity [LOVE]. For if these things be in you and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful... give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye DO THESE THINGS, YE SHALL NEVER FALL" (II Pet. 1:5-8 & 10).

God be with you,


[Ray answers an email about Who Are the Jews and Gentiles]

Adam was NOT a Jew, Abraham was NOT a Jew, but he was an Hebrew,   Hebrews are NOT Jews, Gentiles are NOT descendant from Jews or Israel, Jesus, Peter, and Paul WERE Jews.

First there was Adam and Eve. They and their descendants were not called Jews or Gentiles.

After the flood we have but three sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japeth.  Shem [Hebrew is "SM," no vowels in Hebrew writing, plus "ith" a feminine ending = SM-ith or Smith, just threw that in for fun).

Shem's linage goes like this: Shem begat Arphaxad, who begat Salah, who begat Eber. Eber or Heber is the forefather of all HEBREWS.

Eber (or Heber the Hebrew) then begat Peleg who begat Reu, who begat Serug, who begat Nahor, who begat Terrah and Terah begat Abram whose name God changed to Abraham (Gen. 17:5).

So far we can see that Abraham was of the line of Eber/Heber, and is IS a Hebrew, but He is NOT a Jew, because as of this time there were still NO Jews in the world.

Abram (whose name God changed to Abraham) begat Isaac. Isaac, therefore, too was an Hebrew from the line of Eber/Heber, the Hebrew.

Next Isaac's wife Rebekah had twins: Esau and Jacob (Gen. 25:19-26). And so Esau and Jacob were also Hebrews, but not Jews or Gentiles, because NO ONE at this time in History was called a Jew or a Gentile.

Next Jacob's name was changed by God to the name Israel (Gen. 32:28).

Now we come to Jacob's children and descendants:  Jacob/Israel had TWELVE sons (Gen. 35:22), and here they are (by different wives, however):  Reuben, Simeon, Levi (whose descendants became the Levital Priests in Moses' time), Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher--twelve in all.

Ah, did you notice "Judah" in there? Now we have come to THE VERY FIRST JEW IN HISTORY. Judah's name was never changed, however, his descendants became known as "JEWS"--sort of a nickname.

In Gen. 46:8, we read that all of Israel's (former 'Jacob') sons are called: "The CHILDREN of Israel."  And so ALL of the millions of descendants of Jacob/Israel are called the CHILDREN of Israel. You will see this term "CHILDREN of Israel" repeated hundreds of times, and now you will know exactly who they are and where they came from.

After the CHILDREN of Israel came out of slavery in Egypt, it became customary to refer nations other than the nation of Israel as "goy." This term merely mean "the OTHER nations." And so broadly speaking, there are Israel/Israelites/nation of Israel,  and the OTHER nations that are NOT descendant from the children of Israel. They were usually called "Gentiles."

The Levitical priests came from Israel's son, Levi.

Kind David was a Jew of the tribe of Judah.

Jesus Christ came from Israel's son, Judah.

The Apostle Paul came from Israel's son, Benjamin.

And so before Abraham/Isaac's son, Jacob, there was not such thing as "Israel or Jews." Jacob was the father of ALL Israelites, and the father of ALL Jews. Hence all Jews are Israelites because they came from Jacob/Israel, but not all Israelites are Jews, because only ONE of the twelve children gave birth to all Jews. In the same way that all Floridians are Americans, but not all Americans are Floridians.

Interestingly, the descendants of Eber/Heber/Hebrew are not know as 'Hebrews' in today's world, but are thought to be Gentiles. Today's 'Jews' of Los Angeles, New York and the State of Israel may be a combination of original Jews, Israelite, Hebrews, and some may even be Gentiles and they just don't know it, since all those who practice the religion of Judaism are known as "Jews" regardless of their racial heritage.

Every since Jesus began to build His Church, mostly Gentiles have been called into this Church, with only a small remnant of Jews.  But God reckons all Gentiles who are following his spiritual laws to be Spiritual Jews (Rom. 2:27-29) and Spiritual Israel (Gal. 6:16). Paul told the Gentile Philippians that, "WE (including these Gentile Philippian converts) ARE THE CIRCUMCISION (Phil. 3:2). Therefore (we spiritually circumcised and spiritually baptized Gentiles), "...if ye be Christ's, then are ye ABRAHAM'S SEED, and HEIRS according to the promise" (The promise given to Abraham that he would become a great company of nations). (Gal. 3:29). These physical Gentile Galatians as well as WE, becomes accounted as Abraham's Seed, if we obey God in faith as the "father of the faithful, Abraham" did.

Today the remaining descendants of Israel (the eleven tribes other than Judah--the Jews) are known as "The LOST Tribes of Israel," as most historians do now know where they went. I have some pretty solid historical knowledge as to where they did move and who these Tribles or Children of Israel are today.

Hope this helps your understanding.


[Ray answers a long email about "Contradictions in the Concordant Literal New Testament"]

[Only one in fifty emails to Ray get posted - This is typical of those never posted]

Dear Dwayne:

If you are reading my paper on, you will quickly realize that I quote almost exclusively from the KJV. The reason that I introduce people to a version such as the Concordant Literal New Testament is so that they can see how the Greek words "aion" and "aionion" should be consistently translated. An "aion" [age] cannot be both a period of time with a beginning and an ending and also eternity. If that were possible, then there really could be square circles. For the truth on this one point of how "aion" can and cannot be translated, please read and study the first ten pages of my paper to John Hagee in the article: "EXPOSING THOSE WHO CONTRADICT."

I am well aware of the fact that there are flaws and errors in the Concordant Bible. Are you not also aware that there are TENS OF THOUSANDS of errors in the KJV? And that is after they have corrected approximately FIFTY THOUSANDS errors back in the 1800's by the Revision Committee. ALL translations have errors. I use dozens of translations and find them ALL helpful at times.  It is not humanly possible to translate the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures "flawlessly" from one language to another. Just read the introduction to the KJV 1611 Edition entitled: THE TRANSLATORS to the Readers, for proof of what I am saying.

However, many many of your arguments against the CLNT in this email are not true. For one thing, you often pit the CLNT against the KJV, supposing always that whatever contradicts the KJV must be wrong. And yes, I am aware of other legitimate problems with the CLNT. I have had the privilege to read much of the writings of Alexandra Thompson from Scotland, who aided in the translation of the Concordant Bible until he was black-balled by Knoch. I don't worship any Bible Translation.

Anyway, don't be to sophomoric about condemning me for purposely trying to deceive people. That is slanderous, Dwayne, and you don't have leg to stand on when you lower yourself to such tactics.

I do not have the time nor the inclination to try and answer all of your hundreds and hundreds of Scriptural references. However, Let me just comment on your first unscriptural argument and see if you are willing to own up to your own unscriptural scholarship.

You say that Jesus claimed that He would raise HIMSELF from the dead, is that correct?   Did Jesus actually say that He, Himself, would be the One Who would raise Himself after He was dead? Did he actually say that? Where? You can assume that that is what is "meant" by "I will raise it up." You can assume that that is what is "meant" by "I have the POWER..." And what pray tell was Jesus basing that statement on? His own 'power' to raise the dead while He Himself IS DEAD? No, read it:


Jesus' FATHER told Him what would be done on the third day.

You say that this word 'xousia' means power or authority WHEN REFERRING TO GOD. Not so. Also when referring to carnal men: 

"Then saith Pilate unto Him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have POWER [Gk: exousia] to crucify thee, and have POWER [Gk: exousia] to release thee?" (John 19:10).

Not only in the Scriptures themselves, but in Strong's definition of this word 'exousia' it matters not one iota whether it is speaking of God's power or some human power delegated by God. Am I missing something here, Dwayne?

Furthermore, This word 'exousia' is translated "right" several times in the KING JAMES. Examples:

"We have an altar, whereof they have no RIGHT [Gk: exousia] to eat which serve the tabernacle" (Heb. 13:10).

"Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have RIGHT
[Gk: exousia] to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city" (Rev. 22:14). 

Now then: Is there a statement in the Bible that says, "Jesus Christ raised Himself from the dead?" Is there such a statement in the Bible? In other words, DID JESUS RAISE HIMSELF FROM THE DEAD?  Did He? Where does it say so, Wayne? Where? Because if you can find a place that says that, then I have Scriptures that CONTRADICT that, and we both know (at least I know, and I think you know, because you are fond of using the word 'contradict' and 'contradiction' in your criticism) that the Scriptures DON'T CONTRADICT. Are there Scriptures in the Bible, Dwayne, that tell us EXACTLY AND SPECIFICALLY WHO IT WAS THAT RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD? Yes, there are. Does any ONE OF THEM say that it was Jesus Who raised HIMSELF from the dead? Which one might that be? THERE ARE NONE.

However, Dwayne, there ARE Scripture that do tell us exactly WHO RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD. The question is will YOU believe these Scriptures when I show them to you? OF COURSE YOU WON'T. I would bet dollars to donuts you won't.

Here are a couple:

"Ye men of Israel, hear these words [and you too, Dwayne], Jesus of Nazareth... Whom GOD HAS RAISED UP having loosed the pains OF DEATH" (Acts 2:24).

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit OF GOD dwell in you... But if the Spirit OF HIM
[GOD THE FATHER] that RAISED UP JESUS FROM THE DEAD dwell in you, He [God the Father] that RAISED UP CHRIST FROM THE DEAD shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwells in you... For as many as are led by the SPIRIT OF GOD [GOD THE FATHER], they are the sons of God [God the Father, not sons of the Son]" (Rom. 8:9, 11, & 14).

"Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and GOD THE   FATHER, WHO RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD"
(Gal. 1:1).

Now then, do we have a Scripture that actually says that "Jesus Christ raised Himself up from the dead?" NO. NO, we don't. Do we have numerous Scriptures that state that "God the Father raised up Jesus from the dead?"   Yes. Yes, we do. Will you now acknowledge that the Scriptures plainly tell us numerous that that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead and that there is not one Scripture that states the Jesus Christ raised Himself from the dead, and that both cannot be true, seeing that the Scriptures cannot and do not contradict?

Will you now acknowledge that your argument is WRONG?  NO, I don't think so, but I could be wrong. Why don't you prove me wrong, Dwayne?

And have a nice day.


What about the first hand testimonies of Atheists that have died, such as the cardiologist [that wrote the] book, "To Hell and Back", I can't remember his name, sorry. 

Any way my point is this: This atheist became a believer in Christ Jesus because he suffered a heart attack and died and went to HELL, and while in hell he cried out to Jesus to save him?  Jesus saved him and told him to go back that it was not his time to die and to tell people of what he had seen and heard and to warn them?

This kind of blows everything you teach out of the water so to speak?  There is a hell, a place of torment for those that reject Jesus.

Can you explain all of the testimonies of people that have died, gone to hell or gone to heaven and been sent back because it was not their time to go according to Jesus?

How do you explain their accounts of heaven and hell?

[Ray Replies]

Dear Nameless:

How little you realize how much you CONTRADICT yourself even in one short email.

You believe people DIE BEFORE GOD INTENDED THEM TO DIE! How can that be? Why did God screw up and have these people die at the WRONG TIME?

Some die and go to heaven, you contend. Did they not BELONG THERE? Then why did they GO THERE? And why did they COME BACK?  Maybe next time they die they will GO TO HELL?

Others die and go to hell, you contend. Did they not BELONG IN HELL. Then why did they GO TO HELL.  And why did they COME BACK. Are you saying that these same people who WENT TO HELL(?), but didn't BELONG IN HELL(?), and were not even supposed to have DIED IN THE FIRST PLACE(?), can then RETURN TO EARTH(?), with a HEALED BODY(?), which can then GO TO HEAVEN(?), and how many times must they "die" until they are really DEAD(?). Is that what you believe? Why do you believe such unscriptural nonsense? Because it is in print? Because someone wrote a book to sell and make money from? Do you believe everything that is in print and every book that has been written?

Just how is it that Jesus Christ DOESN'T KNOW WHEN PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO DIE, and doesn't know whether they belong in HEAVEN OR HELL?

Does EVERYONE get a chance to go to hell, see if he likes it or not, and then come back to earth and live again?  I can understand why you say, "I am confused." I would be confused too!

Maybe you would profit from reading my series on "The Lake of Fire" which appears on our "" site. Read the whole series and then let me know if you have any questions. You will learn a LOT! Straight from the Scriptures!

May God be with you,


Hello Sir,
Could you please shed some insights about the fallen angels in Genesis Chp6 1-7. Apparently it goes to say, there was too much wickedness on earth that it grieved God.

I am a bit confused about that. I believe God is ALL KNOWING so why did He got so grieved and decided to wipe these people off the face of the Earth with the exception of Noah.
Your explanation would be greatly appreciated if you have time
God Bless and Stay Blessed


[Ray Replies]

Dear Abed:

Thank you for your email and questions.

Gen. 6 has absolutely NOTHING to do with "fallen angels." The "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" is not speaking of mortals and spirit beings. This is just another one of Christendom's fables.

Jesus plainly told us that,

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God., For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage [why? why aren't they given in marriage? Answer....] ...but are AS THE ANGELS of God in heaven" (Matt. 22:30).

The angels CANNOT MARRY (they have no 'marriage apparatus' if you know what I mean). Yet we are told in Gen. 6:2, that "they took them WIVES of all which they chose." To have a "wife" one must be "MARRIED."   The sons of God and the daughters of men are BOTH HUMAN.

I believe that verse 4 of Gen. 6 is a terrible translation in the King James.  Since most translators have bought into the 'angels fornicating with women' theory, most of them have a very strange translation of this verse. There are whole words in this Hebrew verse that are not even translated at all in most versions.

Notice this translation from the Concordant Version:

"Now the DISTINGUISHED come to be in the earth in those days, and moreover, afterward, coming are those who are sons of God to the daughters of the human, and they bear for them. They are the MASTERS, who are from the eon, MORTALS with the name."

Sorry I don't have time to explain the meaning of all these verses, but at least I want you to know that this is not a case of angels fornicating with women.

God be with you,



Dear Abed:

Oops!  Forgot the second part of your question. God often shows "human emotion" in the Scriptures: jealously, disappointment, sorrow, grief, repentance, etc.  All such words and statements are for man's benefit. God speaks to mankind on a physical, human level, because mankind is carnal (Rom. 8:7) and CANNOT comprehend spiritual things. So God presents us with many statements of human emotion as though God is actually experiencing those "human emotions" at the time He expresses them to us.

This is the RELATIVE truth, only understandable to spiritual babes with carnal minds.   God interacting with the human race no unlike a marionette show for children. To the children, IT APPEARS as though all the action on the stage is REALITY. But every ADULT knows that the real reality is BEHIND THE CURTAIN.  The "operators" of the marionettes are the ultimate reality. GOD IS THAT OPERATOR BEHIND THE CURTAIN OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING:

"In Whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him Who works [Greek: 'operates'] ALL THINGS after the counsel of His own will" (Eph. 1:11).

God is presented in MANY Scriptures as though He CHANGES--does one thing, but then changes and does another; says one thing, but then changes and says another. All this is the RELATIVE from man's perspective. There is much in the Scriptures written this way. Who often does God ASK QUESTIONS in the Scriptures?  DO WE THINK THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW THE ANSWERS?? Of course not. It is for man's benefit that God speaks this way.  "And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" (Gen. 3:9). God KNEW where Adam was. He merely called out to Adam in this way for ADAM'S benefit.

How often we read of God "repenting" of what He said He would do. But that's CHANGING His mind. Does God CHANGE?  Of course not: 

"For I am the LORD, I CHANGE NOT..." (Mal. 3:6).

"God is NOT A MAN, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should REPENT..." (Num. 23:19).

Hope this helps your understanding a little better.


Firstly, let's establish the Bible is allegoric, for it defines itself as an "allegory" in Galatians 4:24. It's pretty obvious from "this Agar is Mt Sinai", "the field is the world", "seven stars are the angels of the seven churches", etc.

It seems to me the only man called "Satan" in the Bible was Peter. So the thorn in Paul's flesh, being allegorically defined as "the messenger of Satan", would be John. 

He was bishop (messenger) of popish Peter (alias Cephas) who subverted the churches of Galatia (Asia) which Paul established. John did so by subverting the seven angels (stars, church leaders) named in Acts, especially Timothy.

Timothy got very depressed about it since he was Paul's assigned bishop over such churches, sent to guard against just such a thing... but we know Timothy recovered, for it tells us he did in To The Hebrews 13:23... written from Italy.

It reasons, since Paul even names John as one of three dogs to beware, the three named bewitchers of the churches being James, Cephas(Peter), John. (Acts and Galatians). These three were not only subverting the christian churches, but causing much division in the empire, which is why Paul took his case to Rome, to Ceasar, to make it known. Paul also used his Titus connection to expose such Hebrews.

James got killed, and Peter got jailed, but escaped and fled to Italy where nobody knew him, and surfaced as Cephas. John, who had a hand in Peter's jailbreak, found Patmos a great place to hide out, but later lived at Ephesus, as bishop over the churches of Asia (Galatia) for Peter.

It was an allegoric chess game, with opposing bishops: Timothy was Paul's bishop, John was Peter's bishop.

Both were headquartered in Ephesus.

I don't know if you're following such, so I'll get to the point.

Paul prays, thrice, for John to depart (die).

The Lord responds: "my grace is sufficient" (no law req'd).

How silly of Paul to ask His Grace to Law(kill) someone.

[Ray Replies]

Dear Daniel:

Thank you for sharing that bit of blasphemous twaddle with us.

According to you, is it PETER and not Satan who "decieves the whole world" (Rev. 12:9)?  Are we to believe that what Jesus meant to say in Luke 22:31, is the following: "And the Lord said, Satan, Satan, hehold, PETER has desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee [Satan], that thy faith fail not, and when thou are converted, strengthen thy brethren"? Or this: "But Peter said, Ananias, why have I [Peter] filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Spirit..."?

Of the approximate twenty-five thousand emails that I have received the past three and one-half years, your's ranks very near the top for being some the most outrageous, insulting, scurrilous, unscriptural hogwash I have ever heard.

May God wash out your mouth and brain with Fullers' Soap (Malachi 3:2)!


Hi Ray,

You said that Adam and Eve were carnal minded before they ate the forbidden fruit. Does that mean they were spiritually dead before they ate?

If so, what was God taking about when he said "on the day you eat you will surely die?"

[Ray Replies]

God treated Adam and Eve in the same way that the Law of Moses treated Israel. There were numerous laws given to Israel, and the breaking of some of them involved the penalty of death. Now as long as no one actually committed the act that was illegal, no penalty was enacted.  One could look at another man's pretty wife, just as long as he didn't touch her or commit physical adultery with her.

God treated Eve the same way. As long as she kept her lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes and pride of life TO HERSELF, God did not punish her. But once she committed an actual act of law-breaking (in this case disobey the law that God had enacted regarding eating the forbidden fruit), then the PENALTY CAME IN TO PLAY.

Today, under the New Covenant, we are guilty for merely THINKING a sinful thought. Now it is a sin to just "look upon a woman to lust after her" even if one doesn't ACTUALLY commit adultery with her. It is a thing of the SPIRIT, and not just the letter.

God be with you,


Dear Allan:

You said that you read most of my paper on Lazarus and the Rich man. Why didn't you read it all? I make at least five hundred statements in that parable, Allan, why don't you pick the best two or three statements that I make that are FALSE according to you, and then PROVE them to be false by using the Scriptures?  What do you think? Give it a try.

You asked if Satan has me deceived?  What a stupid question!  People who are deceived do not know that they are deceived, for that is what being deceived is--NOT KNOWING the Truth! And so, No, Satan does not have me deceived.

You asked me "For what did Christ suffer and die?" You are inferring from your email that He died to save us FROM HELL.  Here are a few of the reasons that Jesus Christ DIED:

"While we were yet sinners, Christ DIED FOR US" (Rom. 5:8 & I Thes. 5:10).

"For the love of Christ constrains us; because we thus judge, that if One died for ALL, then were all dead: and that He DIED FOR ALL, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him WHICH DIED FOR THEM, and rose again" (
II Thes. 5:14-15).

"Christ DIED FOR OUR SINS according to the Scriptures"
(I Cor. 15:3).

"For to this end Christ BOTH DIED, AND ROSE, AND REVIVED
[lived again], that He might be Lord both of the DEAD AND LIVING" (Rom. 14:9).

"For in that He died, HE DIED UNTO SIN" (Rom. 6:10).

(Rom. 5:6).

"But God commends His love toward us, in that, while we were YET SINNERS, Christ DIED FOR US"
(Rom. 5:8).

You will look in vain, Allan, for a Scripture that says Jesus died to keep us out of hell--there is no such Scripture.

And the reasons for Christ "suffering" are also the reasons why He died:

"For asmuch then as Christ HAS SUFFERED FOR US" (I Pet. 4:1).

"Christ also SUFFERED FOR US, leaving us an example
['yet learned He OBEDIENCE by the things which HE SUFFERED' Heb. 5:8], that ye should follow His steps [of SUFFERING]" (I Pet. 2:21).

Likewise, you will look in vain to find a Scripture that tells us Jesus suffered so that we will not need to suffer in some fabled terrorist hellhole of fire.

These reasons why Jesus DIED are all in according with the very purpose for which the Father commissioned Jesus TO DIE:

"And we have seen and do testify that the Father SENT THE SON [commissioned Him] TO BE THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD" (I John 4:14).  

Only blasphemers insist that Jesus will UTTERLY FAIL at the very job His Father commissioned Him to do. And that He will NOT INDEED, be the "SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD," but possibly only a tiny fraction of it.  Rather than the Father seeking out THE ONE LOST SHEEP AND SAVING IT, heretics rather suggest that the Father saves the ONE SHEEP and LOOSES THE NINETY AND NINE TO HELL AND SATAN!!! 

Hence, Allan: 

"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we TRUST in the Living God, Who is THE SAVIOUR OF ALL MEN, specially [do you read the word 'EXCLUSIVELY' there, Allan?], SPECIALLY of those that believe" (I Tim. 4:10).

You don't really have a God that you  "TRUST IN" Who will be "THE SAVIOUR OF A-L-L MEN," do you, Allan? No, of course you don't, or you wouldn't teach the unscriptural heresy that you do.

May God grant you eyes to see, ears to ear, and a compassionate heart for all mankind.




I am doing my master's thesis on the doctrine of hell, and found your website. Maybe I will forward you a copy when I am done, so you can see a systematic study on the doctrine, instead on attacking televangelists who don't know what rightly dividing is. (Honestly, attacking TV evangelists? Isn't that a little like picking on a 10 year old?)

Oh, well. I know my little e-mail will not undo your years of undermining God's words, and setting yourself up as the Final Authority, but for some reason I'm still typing!

It's funny to me how every false doctrine stems from unbelief in God's words, and you can't seem to take one word from a King James Bible and prove your heresy with it.

Admit it. All of your heresy is based upon interoperations of words that YOU decide upon.

Where is your Bible? Where is your Final Authority? When a verse could be translated hell or The unseen, who decides?

You do. How convenient. Oh, it can't be translated Hell? Why not? It's been translated that way for hundreds of years.

I'll ask you a question. Why should it be translated "the unseen"? Because your Greek dictionary said so? How did the editors of the dictionary arrive at that definition?

Because its been translated that way for hundreds of years.


Stop judging that book, and start letting that book judge you...

[Ray Replies]


You are mean-spirited and have not a clue as to what you are talking about. I use the King James as my main translation in writing my papers.  I do not rewrite the King James to suit my personal preferences.

There are but a handful of words that are not properly translated in the King James = "hades" "aions" and "aionios." Translate these ACCORDING TO THEIR USAGE AND MEANING and the King James becomes one of the finest translation that ever was.

I do not specifically "attack televangelists" even though you might feel better by saying so. What I actually do is "EXPOSE THOSE WHO CONTRADICT" the Word of God (Titus 1:9, Concordant Translation--sorry, King James does not have this verse quite right, but there are certainly many other verses in the King James that carry this same meaning of exposing heretics).

And by the way, Nameless, these "ten year old evangelists" are DECEIVING MILLIONS of adults, some of which have doctorates and IQ's in excess of 150!   Sorry, that bit of sarcasm back-fired on you.

I have nowhere "set myself as the Final Authority" of anything, as you suggest.

You state: "All of your heresy is based upon interpretations of words that YOU [that's me] decide upon."  That's a LIE, Nameless. It is YOU who are guilty of you own condemnation.

You want KING JAMES, do you?  ARE YOU SURE?  Okay, I'll GIVE YOU KING JAMES, and I won't change or present any variant translation of the verses I will use. Here is a litmus test just for you:

1.  "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD" (KING JAMES BIBLE: I John 4:14).

God the Father sent [commissioned] Jesus Christ to be the SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD. I believe that Scripture totally. In order to be the "SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD" one must "SAVE THE WORLD." Jesus Christ WILL SAVE THE WORLD. How much of the world? The "WHOLE" world: "And He IS the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD" (KING JAMES BIBLES: I John 2:2).

You don't believe that Jesus WILL save the WHOLE world, do you, Nameless? No, of course you don't. If you did you wouldn't be writing your damnable paper to promote the fabled torturing of most of humanity in some terrorists hellhole of eternal suffering in fire. Most of Christendom believes and teaches that Jesus Christ will UTTERLY FAIL at doing the one thing that His Father commissioned Him to do. Who's calling the kettle black?

2.  "For this is GOOD and ACCEPTABLE in the sight of God our Saviour [of the WHOLE world, I John]; Who WILL have ALL MEN TO BE SAVED, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (KING JAMES BIBLE: I Tim. 2:4).

Yes, God WILL have all men saved. But YOU, YOU, Nameless, and ten thousand more just like you, want to CHANGE THIS WORD "WILL" into a "WEAK, UNATTAINABLE, WISHY-WASHY, DESIRE OR WISH." It is YOU who want to CHANGE WORDS AND THEIR MEANINGS!! Even when God "WISHES" for something, IT WILL BE DONE!

Where do you and ten thousands other heretics get off, suggesting that the very WILL (or DESIRE, if you insist) of God Almighty will NOT BE DONE?  If God has SAID IT, PROCLAIMED IT, DESIRES IT, WILLS IT, (use any term you want), if it WISHES IT or IT PLEASES HIM, it is absolute BLASPHEMY to teach that God Almighty will NOT ACHIEVE HIS OWN, COUNSEL, WORD, DESIRE, OR WILL, GOOD PLEASURE, etc., etc., etc.

If I Tim. 2:4 stated that, "...God our Saviour will NOT have all men to be saved..." would you not use that verse to PROVE that those who teach the salvation of all are Scripturally wrong?  Would not this then become your PRIMARY verse to disprove universalists? Would you not cite a verse that came right out and plainly STATED, that "...God our Saviour Who will NOT have all men to be saved...?"  OF COURSE YOU WOULD, YOU KNOW YOU WOULD! Well guess what, Nameless? THERE IS NO SUCH VERSE (not even in the KING JAMES) that makes any such statement, but there is a verse straight from the KING JAMES THAT DOES PLAINLY STATE: "..God our Saviour Who WILL have ALL MEN TO BE SAVED..." I Tim. 2:4!

So here then is Christian Scholarship at its finest:

If there WERE a Scripture that stated: "God our Saviour Who WILL NOT have all men to be saved...," then to Christians this verse would PROVE THAT GOD  WILL NOT   SAVE ALL MEN!

But since there IS a Scripture that states the diametric, absolutely, 180 degrees OPPOSITE of such a Scripture:  "God our Saviour Who WILL have all men to be saved...," then to Christians this verse ALSO PROVES THAT GOD  WILL NOT   SAVE ALL MEN!

And so if God "will NOT" save all men; He will NOT save all men, and if God WILL save all men; He also WILL NOT save all men! Have you ever heard of the word "CONTRADICTION?"  And YOU have the unmitigated gall to suggest that that it is "I" who am guilty of "...years of UNDERMINING GOD'S WORDS..."

There is no teaching in the entirety of the universe that "undermines God's words" more than the unscriptural and damnable heresy of a never-ending hell-hole of inhumane torture in fire!!!

Two witnesses establishes a Scriptural Truth, but I will take the time to give you just one more. The theme Scripture from the bottom of my site:

3.  "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the Living God, WHO IS THE SAVIOUR OF ALL MEN, SPECIALLY [not 'exclusively' as Christendom teaches, but "in the greatest degree and particularly" Strong's #3122] of those that BELIEVE." (KING JAMES BIBLE: I Tim. 4:10). 

Why do I get the feeling that you have never ever "suffered REPROACH" for teaching this verse of Scripture? I have. MANY MANY TIMES!

Believers and non-believers covers EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHOM HAS EVER LIVED OR WILL LIVE. And this verse says that they will ALL be saved, because God is going to make "believers" our of all "non-believers." In God's gracious judgments, all men will repent and learn to live RIGHTEOUSLY:


But you don't believes either of these two verses, do you? Of course you don't, or you wouldn't be wasting precious time trying to legitimize damnable pagan doctrines in the Church of God.

You suggest that "hell" is a proper translation NOT BECAUSE THE GREEK HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ENGLISH WORD HELL, but, "Because its been translated that way for HUNDREDS OF YEARS." You overwhelm me, Nameless! COMPLETELY OVERWHELM ME!   When an ERROR has been perpetuated for HUNDREDS OF YEARS, does it then become TRUTH? UNBELIEVABLE? And you are going to work on a "Master's Degree" with this degree of scholastic integrity?  God have mercy on those who read your final dissertation!

You have not even a CLUE as to what you are stating. Follow me, honestly, with an open mind, for just a few seconds:

WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY ("New World" Did you catch that. This is a MODERN, "NEW world dictionary):  "hell (hel), n. 1.  the place where Christians believe that DEVILS LIVE and wicked people go to be PUNISHED AFTER THEY DIE."

Was THAT the definition of the word "hell" FOUR HUNDRED YEARS AGO, when the KING JAMES was translated? Was it. SHOW ME that definition in a dictionary from four hundred years ago! Now then, the original meaning of the Old English word "hell":

WEBSTER'S TWENTIETH CENTURY DICTIONARY: "hell, n. [ME, helle; AS, hell, hell, from helan, to COVER, CONCEAL]." To "cover" or "conceal." THAT'S why it can be translated "UNSEEN" or "IMPERCEPTIBLE." Because when something is COVERED AND CONCEALED, it can't be seen, nor is there any perception of it. Some English farmers to this day, refer to putting their potatoes "in HELL" for the winter. Where are the "devils" in this definition of hell? Where is the "punishment" in this definition?  Where is the FIRE in this definition?   Where is the ETERNITY in this definition? It isn't there and it isn't in the Scriptures either!

As God as MY Judge, Nameless, it is YOU who will be judged in the lake of fire if you don't give up these damnable unscriptural heresies that make God out to be ten trillion times more inhumane, wicked, and evil than all of the world's terrorists COMBINED!

It is a SICK AND DISGUSTING fable of paganism and is found NOWHERE in the Inspired pages of New Testament Greek Manuscripts. THINK LONG AND HARD ABOUT IT, while you search the musty halls of tradition to support your hell dissertation.

May God open you and give you a spirit of wisdom and understanding,


[And Follow Up's]


Thank you for your prompt response! I will make sure to send you a copy once it is completed (the thesis), as I do not wish to write one over email! Know that my basis for definition is not simply hundreds of years of defining it that way, nor is it simply a dictionary. Both of these are FALLIBLE methods of defining words. The only infallible method we have it to get the definition from within the infallible book... God's book. So I will be using the Bible to define the Bible, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, placing line upon line, and precept upon precept.

We shall see what the conclusion will be!

In the meantime, my short email was only to say that its funny to me how that everyone "uses" and "loves" the King James Bible, but yet everyone will change the words that do not fit their pet heresy! Its different for each group..."The KJV is God's words, but its unfortunate that they made a mistake Here..."

Go to a different group, and they will show you that the latter verse was correct, but in fact it is another that needs to be changed! It simply depends on the doctrine they are trying to justify! I see yours is "universalism"...

[Ray Replies]

Dear Sam, I guess your name is Sam:

How and you be so ignorant and naive as to say the King James Bible is "infallible?" The Revision Committee of the 1800's made approximately FIFTY THOUSAND CHANGES! Now then, answer me this, please, was the King James "infallible" BEFORE the fifty thousand changes or AFTER the fifty thousand error corrections?  And really, Sam, for four hundred years now Matt. 23:24 has people believing that Jesus didn't know the different between "straining AT a gnat" or "straining OUT a gnat." Do you know what a gnat is? Do you know what a strain is? One uses a strain to strain OUT a gnat, not to strain AT a gnat. How many more hundred years do you suspect it will take before the finally correct that foolish little error?

Have you ever read the 1611 King James Bible, Sam? Have you? Do you even HAVE a 1611 King James Bible? If you do, what is your take on the books of The Rest of Esther, Wisedome, Baruch with the Epistle of Jeremiah, The song of the three children, The Idole Bel and the Dragon, and others that are IN THE 1611 KING JAMES BIBLE?  Maybe you didn't even know that these are other Apocryphal books are part of the original 1611 INFALLIBLE King James Bible.

You are aware of the fact that "hades" in Greek is the equivalent of "sheol" in the Hebrew, are you not? Well then, did you know that the King James Translators translated the word sheol in the Old Testament 33 times as "grave" and 33 times as "hell?" What did they do FLIP A COIN?

Can you prove from the context that this perfect 50/50 split on the word "sheol" is absolutely correct and infallible? Which is it: hell or the grave?  If you do not understand or even know of these simple facts regarding bible translations, how in the world are you going to write a dissertation on the topic of hell?   As our Lord said, if you don't understand PHYSICAL THINGS, how are you ever going to understand SPIRITUAL THINGS?

May God open your mind,


Dear Mr. Smith,

I'm sure you get lots of emails like this, so I don't know if you'll respond; I'm not even really sure whether you'll read this or not. I just felt obliged to write this email to let you know about the impact your site had on me.

When I was little, I had lots of questions about religion (I'm a sophomore in college now). Both my parents were from India: my mother was a Christian and my father was Hindu. My mom wasn't really very well versed in the scriptures. I know she hadn't studied them as thoroughly as you did. She probably couldn't quote half of your quotes. Often when I was younger, I would ask her about things I learned from [insert any source BUT the bible here] which struck me as contradictory. Why would God love people as a father and yet send them to hell ; ; forever? How did that fit in with the idea of loving your enemies and turning the other cheek? My mom always answered me very honestly. She would say "I don't know." She would also add that she felt in her heart of hearts, that God was a loving and merciful God of peace. Instinctively, intuitively, she was certain that there was no such thing as hell and that God was not a wrathful avenger who wreaked vengeance even on people who didn't know about him. But because I was young and stupid, I discredited my mom's instincts and believed what I heard from the media all around me. My father was also an outspoken anti-Christian at the time, so I picked up on some of what he said too.

The idea of hell really bothered me. Since I come from a family of mixed religion, it affected me in a personal way. Was my dad going to hell for all eternity? Was my little sister going to hell for a ll eternity because she was an agnostic and hadn't made up her mind? It was such a horrible thing for me to contemplate, that I turned in a completely different direction from Christianity and became a total atheist instead.

I now feel horrible that the thought of hell, proposed only by the media could have driven me away from a loving relationship with God. I feel so ashamed that I actual thought that God, our all-loving and merciful father, would really, truly, condemn any of His children to eternal suffering in the flames of hell. The thought had always been so sick and repulsive to me. How could I have believed that God could actually do such a thing?

In high school, one of my really good friends was a Catholic. She didn't know Scripture very well either, but when we talked about religion together, she convinced me that there might be something to Christianity after all. She still believed in hell however, and I had a problem with that. After a while, and some desultory research, I decided that I would just have to trust in God. God is more just, merciful, wise and loving than any mere mortal. Surely therefore, He could be counted on to make a just and fair choice regarding where someone went heaven or hell. I felt like I had to put my whole faith in God on this matter. However, I still had personal doubts.

When I first came across your website--totally by chance--and read some of your work I literally cried. It was as though everything made sense to me! All the pieces of the Christian religion which I had been struggling with fit together. When I first started reading your papers, I was like "Oh God, another Bible-thumper coming to preach fire and brimstone" but your research impressed me. You put so much effort in to your work and you countered all the objections that other people threw at you skillfully. What I read on your site was the first interpretation of Christianity that actually made sense, or seemed to have a root in the actual Bible. It explained all the contradictions that had previously puzzled me. Everything about Christianity and God's message made total sense for the first time in my life!

Now that I think about it, I really can't believe that Christians who are supposed to be free of pride think that they are going to heaven, while happily condemning the rest of the world to hell. They're supposed to love their enemies, and yet they seem to almost rejoice when they confront a non-believer who is going to hell (like me). How can they judge other people when the Bible tells us to judge not and to not cast stones because everyone has sinned?

Anyway, this email was longer than I intended. I just wanted to let you know that your work meant a great deal to me. I even appreciated your sarcasm :D I don't consider myself a Christian quite yet. As you said, no one makes a conscious choice to follow God; God chooses them. I feel like God has been working on making a connection with me all my life, and with every incident such as finding your site, He draws me closer and closer to Him. Sometimes I picture my faith like a flower that is slowly opening up. It's not quite there yet, but I'm getting somewhere.

Please don't stop writing! You have no idea how much this site meant to me to find! I have loads of friends who are atheist or agnostic or non-devout because they have problems with the concept of hell. I am recommending them all to your site. Don't let the criticism get you down. You are making a huge difference for people like me. I really thank God for your site. It was such an eye-opener!

Thanks again,


Dear Rebekah: 

Thank you for your email and comments.  It is for people just like you, Rebekah, that I spend the thousands of hours that I do, researching and studying God's Word as closely to the original manuscripts as I am able with my limited knowledge and education.  But thankfully, we receive hundreds and now probably thousands of emails similar to yours, and it makes our work all worth while. 

If God is calling you to a spiritual understanding of His word and His plan, then you will continue to learn and have faith in the only thing in the Universe that has meaning beyond death and the grave. 

God be with you and yours,


[A reply to a reader name Nathan]

Dear Nathan:

That fact that God exists and that God is sovereign does not somehow deny OUR EXISTENCE. What we say and do absolutely matters. That's WHY we exist, because our existence, and what do say and do DOES MATTER.  People ask me all the time:

"Well, if God is going to ultimately save everyone, why did Jesus even have to die in the first place?" 

That is one of the most stupid questions there is, Yet I get asked it all the time. JESUS DYING IS THE VERY CAUSE AND REASON WHY everyone is going to be saved!!

By your very existence, you are FORCED to make hundreds of choices daily and live your life. Making choices and living your life brings knowledge, experience, and either builds or sometimes destroy traits of character. God is accomplishing is plan in humanity whether they know or understand what He is doing of not, and most of course, do not know or understand. It is a great privilege to know and understand the plan of God, precious few do. Understanding God's sovereignty PROVES to us that EVERYTHING is going to turn out okay, not only for us, but for the whole creation. What greater hope could there ever be than THIS?

If the evil teachings of Christendom where true, then we would have a small fraction of people "freely" choosing to do right, and the vast majority going to a fabled hell to burn for all eternity. What kind of security is there in such damnable heresy?  

Now I am sorry that it just DESTROYS one's very emotional makeup and false human security to learn that God is greater than puny man. Man wants to be his own god. Man wants to be in charge of his own destiny. If that were true, then we would all end up in the gutter. Man is not strong enough to do and live rightly. And those who do live a moderately righteous life, only do so because God has enabled them to do so. EVERY GOOD GIFT COMES FROM ABOVE, FROM THE FATHER OF LIGHTS, James tells us.

People think that when they do something good, that they did it ALL ON THEIR OWN, and are to be congratulated. Likewise when people do something evil, that they also did it all on their own, and are to be condemned.  People do things according to what circumstances CAUSE THEM TO DO. That does not make us puppets. My no. We think too highly of ourselves if we think we are puppets--we are but A LUMP OF CLAY in the Potter's hands. The Potter being God.

I realize that people JUST HATE AND DESPISE teachings like this even if they are Scriptural Truth. People don't want to be just "a lump of clay in the Hands of a Potter." THEY want to BE THE POTTER. Well, they are not, they are but the clay and God is the SOVEREIGN POTTER.

The reason this thought discourages some people is because they see that THEIR OWN FLESH is really nothing in the sight of the GREAT SOVEREIGN CREATOR GOD. They are "carnal." Paul tells us to be carnally-minded is DEATH. Why?

"For to be carnally minded is DEATH: but to be spiritually minded is LIFE AND PEACE. Because the carnal mind is ENMITY [ABSOLUTE HATRED] AGAINST GOD" (Rom. 8:6-7).

And when one HATES GOD, they have NO LIFE AND PEACE, all ends in misery.

So what should one do? CRY OUT TO GOD TO CHANGE YOUR CARNAL HATE FILLED MIND TOWARD GOD! Does God even HEAR such prayers? Of course He does, why it is He who even INSPIRED one to pray that kind of prayer in the first place. And just when where and how does He do that? Through silly emails over the telephone lines like you are receiving from me RIGHT NOW!

"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by THE FOOLISHNESS OF PREACHING to save them that believe" (I Cor. 12:1).

God will eventually HUMBLE every soul that ever existed. Perhaps He is humbling your wife's soul right now:

"HUMBLE YOURSELF therefore under the MIGHTY hand of God, that He may EXALT YOU IN DUE TIME"  (I Pet. 5:6).

God be with you,