Видео

Very nice, Jelena

@@FAITHANDHONOR-q4c 👼

Amen, Cheryl.

@@esperperez4110 God bless you and your son, Esper.

@@syeedajechols I truly appreciate comments like these! It motivates me to keep going. Thank you.

@@GillieRoberts Amen, Gillie.

I really appreciate responses like this. It helps motivate me to make more videos. Thank you very much!

God bless you, Linda. :)

Amen. :)

You’ve got that right, sister.

You've got that right, sister.

@@MattKonar I love that idea. I’ve been putting out narrative summaries of the books of the Bible and trying to follow it with fun trivia to reinforce the lessons. Each video takes about 5 hours, so, it’s a lot… but worth it. :) I’ll look into your idea. Thank you.

@@dr.brooksieesq.7286 thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

You are right, to clarify; Hagar is properly considered a concubine of Abraham’s, although the Bible does call her a “wife” of Abraham in Genesis 16:3: “So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife” (ESV). A wife and a concubine held distinct roles in a family, but a concubine was still considered a wife of sorts. Hagar was his concubine. He married Keturah after Sarah’s death.

I had never heard about Abraham’s sister hating her because she was black. That’s fascinating! Will you shoot me a link so I can check that out?

@@plainsman Thank you for commenting! I really appreciate it. I can appreciate your opinion about creation and devastation of the early world. Unfortunately, you didn’t cite any real evidence to support your claim. I know it’s hard for people with only a surface understanding of the Bible to believe that the Bible and science can’t coexist. I would suggest, or of care and compassion, that you dig deeper into the understanding of the Bible as taught by the Church fathers and passed down by the magisterium to get a complete view of the Churches stance. Yours in Christ.

@@FAITHANDHONOR-q4c How much evidence do you need??? Science knows how old the universe and the Earth are. Science knows how old the earliest upright walking proto-humans were, how many million years old the genetic line was that led to Homo sapiens, and approximately when these early humand began th migrate out of Africa.. Science knows that there is abundant empirical evidence that there was never a global flood, and as a consequence no literal ark. Science knows that the only logical position is that Genesis is at best an allegorical approach to getting across theological points to an illiterate populace. Since the time of the early church, many theologians have recognized that Genesis presents a largely figurative depiction of creation. Augustine and Origen both understood, for instance, that the Bible did not describe literal twenty-four hour days. As Origen put it, “who would be so foolish as to believe that the days of creation are literal days when there is not even sun, moon, and stars until the fourth day”. If i were you, I would take a look at the Christian run website BioLogos, and see how science literate Christians look at a variety of topics that biblical inerrantists refuse to accept.

@@FAITHANDHONOR-q4c I DID reply but my statement was deleted, and I'm not going to waste my time typing anything else for any entity so intellectually dishonest.

@@plainsman My friend... I NEVER delete comments. If I did, I'd be more inclined to delete your first one. I don't know what happened, but be assured, it wasn't me. I'd encourage you to please reply again.