Comments on: Kirsten Powers conversion story makes me sad. http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/ One atheist's thoughts on politics, religion, and philsophy Sat, 28 Mar 2015 21:28:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2 By: Why I, as an ex-Christian, am reluctant to be friends with evangelicals. | Skeptimus Prime http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-196 Fri, 13 Feb 2015 01:14:08 +0000 http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-196 […] More on my issues with Christian manipulation: Kirsten Powers conversion story makes me sad. […]

]]>
By: Why I, as an ex-Christian, am reluctant to be friends with evangelicals. | Skeptimus Prime http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-197 Fri, 13 Feb 2015 01:14:08 +0000 http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-197 […] More on my issues with Christian manipulation: Kirsten Powers conversion story makes me sad. […]

]]>
By: Dylan Walker (Skeptimus Prime) http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-193 Wed, 04 Feb 2015 16:20:00 +0000 http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-193 Reading comprehension not your strong suite I see.

]]>
By: NJKProject144 http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-192 Wed, 04 Feb 2015 13:50:00 +0000 http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-192 ..btw Dylan, (and as per Pro 26:5), it conversely is for the irrational chief tenet that ‘something can come out of nothing’ that I myself entirely, yet not even summarily, reject the atheistic world view as “junk”, -including its factually/demonstratedly junk/pseudo-“science”…

]]>
By: NJKProject144 http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-191 Wed, 04 Feb 2015 07:32:00 +0000 http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-191 …And just to make factually clear what my “prophetic facts” basis is actually all about: I am presenting you (skeptics/atheists), on one hand the scientific facts that someone, hundreds, even thousands of years before set forth in verifiably dated writings that such and such events would occur in the future, moreover relating how this was a from a revelation from God, and then later, and in specific cases, at the exact time, objective history transpired and was, also objectively recorded, that events which fit the criteria of those predictions did indeed occur.

So that all are indeed “facts”, on both sides, and bridged together by a claim of Supernatural actions, which needs to be seriously considered, especially by the truly honest/serious person.

]]>
By: NJKProject144 http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-190 Wed, 04 Feb 2015 06:58:00 +0000 http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-190 In due response, and as an overarching illustration, [and you don’t actually have to publically post this, your (desperate) prerogative…] you saying that you will not engage/examine my factual basis claimed in (historically) fulfilled Bible prophecy would be akin to me saying that: “because you/atheists believe in evolution and claim that the geological layers of the Grand Canyon support those origins theories, then I will just refuse to consider those “facts”. Fact is that, Theistic Creationists have indeed fully considered such claimed supportive facts, and have soundly presented an entirely different scientific model for their presence and formation. You had said that you would do a similar thing with my claims of fulfilled Bible prophecy, but have backed out of that, instead just generalistically claiming, really circularly, that “you don’t believe God exists”. I hope you can see how I myself cannot see this as an objectively fair consideration of my view.

Such a summarily, indifferently dismissive approach is quite typical from the non-theist side, whereas the theist side is actually the one which is more open-minded and factually-responsible. (Topically pertinent, that is the related basis of Kirsten Powers’ forthcoming book “The Silencing” previewed here).And that is all indicative of people who are actually (despite professions) not confident of their belief and view. Case in point as, evidently being resorted to now… Indeed the typical thing for an atheist to do is to boil things down to a “who cares anyway” dismissal. (Mind you however, as I have also relatedly experienced in my various discussion, this stance and response also exists in the theistic side, and so I am actually compelled to pin all this on one being incapable of actually sounding and factually defending their view, whatever it is.

Some specific responses
-Harold Camping did not have a sound Biblical hermeneutic for his interpretation

-Same thing in key/thematic part the Millerites and not SDA’s who later correct Miller’s hermeneutical error, but their reckon prophetic time was accurate, the believed “Second Coming” Event was not. (Only 5000 people of the 500,000 Millerites and also refusingly so the “leader” William Miller himself, went on to form the SDA Church.)

-Of course other people have dismissingly claimed that I am a false prophet…but, like you, they have been unable to Biblically substantiate their claim. I am not swayed by mere opinions and claims.

-I am not claiming to be a Scientific Creationist expert, because I have not myself done my original studies into it, but I have considered both sides of the debate from specialists and experts, and I do find the Creationist view better substantiated, indeed it better fits and explains those “observable facts”.

-You clearly don’t carefully read what I have written, posted and referred, so don’t expect me to do so in regards to what you write…You have likewise misconstrued much of what I have written, so don’t try to play a victim’s card here. Don’t fool, guilt, nor impress me….Contrary to your probably assumption for Christians, I mandately just don’t owe you, or anyone else, any more than they themselves are willing to invest and do in a discussion. Indeed that would be way too costly for me. I actually don’t need you to believe my view, and really just intended to post that informational reference and quotation about Kirsten Powers, didn’t actually want, nor have time for any further “debating”.

-I simply said the basis for your philosophies was, in my view, not factually/conclusively/concretely set. You can pridefully/vexatiously extrapolate whatever you want from that…just don’t fault me for it. Your issue is that you think more your capabilities and understanding that what is actually factually provable, e.g. you touting Christian studies competence, when that is factually just not the case. Hopefully you were just oblivious to that, otherwise that itself would be grossly misleading…

-And what I am actually deliberately doing is indeed factually pop that bubble which you are sheltering your stance in, and that is done by trying to get you to engage head on those facts of the other side which you, and other skeptic/atheists like you indeed just prefer to vacuously dismiss…Now do prove me right that you actually have an underlying problematic “prideful bubble”, one which clearly does not allow you to begin to consider that you could be “factually” wrong. Again, I, documentedly, do not have that blocking issue, as I have no problem engaging the claimed facts (which again is just not the same as (derived) theories/philosophies, of the other side(s)).

]]>
By: Dylan Walker (Skeptimus Prime) http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-189 Wed, 04 Feb 2015 06:05:00 +0000 http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-189 I have to be honest, I’ve already explained why I’m not terribly interested in discussing minutia of your specific interpretations of various Bible passages. I’ve read a lot of this stuff and it’s all junk in my opinion.

How many times did Harold Camping predict the world was going to end? How many other people were certain the bible predicted some thing or another? The entire seventh day Adventist church started over a prediction about the end of the world but did people leave the group when the leader was wrong? Nope, in fact more people joined and he made another prediction which was also wrong.

My point is that prophecy has zero credibility, You’ll probably say that those people were false prophets who didn’t interpret things correctly, but there are not doubt other Christians who would say you are the false prophet.

Well I myself have actually considered that supposed scientific basis in my Creation vs. Evolution studiesand have not at all found the Evolution claims to be scientific, let alone factual and true.

Well the fact is that you are wrong, I’ve read a bit of your writing here and you just have a bad understanding not only of the scientific facts, but of the philosophy of science. Creationism only fits the fact if you, once again, engage in ad hoc reasoning to fit things together.

And relatedly, taking you up on your claims, which seriously stated just keep being shown to have been vacuous, i.e., not serious, I was going to ask you to also propose how someone, -i.e. a “psychic”, as you had posited, could have accurately predicted the 70 Week prophecy, but you have now also back-peddled out of that claim by stating that you don’t believe psychics could actually do that.

I didn’t back peddle, If you had bothered to actually read what I wrote initially the you would see that my statements were completely consistent. You know, I’ll debate with anyone pretty regardless of disagreement, and even really try to be friendly about it, but I require two things, be polite and debate in good faith.

My arguments were serious and I bristle at the implication that I am not making arguments because I believe they are both pertinent and valid.

I don’t like being called a liar, and I don’t like having people intentionally misrepresent my own statements in order drive some snide remarks. We are done. Call me prickly if you like, but I’m not getting anything out of this conversation and you are spending more time trying to get a rise out of me than trying to engage with my arguments. I’ve had plenty of more intellectually stimulating conversations with theists, and I’m not afraid of serious debates or intellectual critiques of my position, but I’m not convinced you are capable of either at this point.

Further posts will be deleted.

]]>
By: NJKProject144 http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-188 Wed, 04 Feb 2015 05:39:00 +0000 http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-188 It is indeed true that we are going around in circles pointedly because we have two different approaches to resolving this issue. You through your studies are convinced that this can be done through philosophy; I on the other hand have seen have seen that proper theology perfectly does it for me. However we actually do have a basic common approach, and that is that, at least speaking surely for me, from what I have endeavored to do, rely on a factual basis from which we then build up our distinct approaches, you philosophy, me theology. So that is why I was challenging you to “find” holes in my factual basis of, indeed, accurately, timely, and seriously, (i.e., all pertinent things considered): incontrovertibly fulfilled prophecies, again prime case in point Dan 9:24:27. (And, like I said, in my studies, I necessarily dealt with all of the counter claims of Christians (and Jewish) out there, (which are actually categorized under for methods of interpreting it). So unless you, or someone else has since come up with a new understanding, I factually don’t see that this Biblical Interpretation is, or can be challenged).

All this to say, and as per you elsewhere professed “tactic” of: ‘(actually), beneficially, “raising” the other side’s argument to its highest level before (trying) to shoot it down’…you have actually not at all shown my factual foundation to be wrong, and therefore, to me, the “theology highrise” which I have built on it is secure and sound. I on the other hand, have to my (unchallenged) satisfaction in my blog work, being working to debunk the factual basis for atheists like yourself. In that other post’s commenting you say that you cannot accept my “God is the source of life” theology, because of your “scientific” studies and knowledge. Well I myself have actually considered that supposed scientific basis in my Creation vs. Evolution studies and have not at all found the Evolution claims to be scientific, let alone factual and true. (I primarily recommend you go through that posted Walter J. Veith series; -former (staunch) Evolution professor btw) So I was (naturally) theologically-speaking from that studied out basis.

Again I see no point in engaging in theoretical/philosophical discussion if the facts are not first fully verified. Which is why I have been suggesting my approach. And relatedly, taking you up on your claims, which seriously stated just keep being shown to have been vacuous, i.e., not serious, I was going to ask you to also propose how someone, -i.e. a “psychic”, as you had posited, could have accurately predicted the 70 Week prophecy, but you have now also back-peddled out of that claim by stating that you don’t believe psychics could actually do that.

Relatedly, I understand your problem with the ‘God outside of time’ view [sorry for not quoting your statements btw], and I myself have also written against its validity, even actual necessity. My Biblically studied out view/theology is that God operates in contemporary time (cf. Luke 20:38) and also the future cannot logically/realistically actually “exist”. For it to exist, we would have actually need to have lived out (future) lives, and that is not realistically feasible. Again God merely plans the future, and then when that prophesied time comes, He, if necessary, cooperates with obedient me to carry it out (=Isa 46:9-11)

In regards to the Christian Right and Dominionism, ironically enough, if it was not for Bible prophecy, I would have probably been just like them in trying to forcefully making America a Christian Theocracy. I however do believe that a Theocratic-based government and country can lawfully exist, indeed as per my (prophetic) New Jerusalem Kingdom Plans, but, as also allowed by God, e.g. with Israel, the constituent people first have to willing ascribe to such a rule (e.g. Exod 24:7-8), and secondly, they can, at any time, freely choose to no longer have such a rule, at their preferred consequential detriment of course, for at best, they then will only be recreating an “America Jr.” and America has actually been God’s object-lesson demonstration of the best that an even predominantly Christian people/nation ultimately ruled by democracy can at best achieved, which according to God’s standard, is nothing righteous.

In regards to your offer for a public debate, I frankly found this venue “public” enough, though a formal forum would be better indeed than blog post commentings, however given the realities of my work load agenda and work scheduling, I would first have to see what that other venue would entail before I fully agree to it. I would be able to guarantee that it would be a “live” debate, but, if it is a typical postings forum, where I can post my responses when I have the chance, then that would be best for me. I have participated in several forums before, and I have confirmingly seen that what is best is not necessarily quick and “live” responding, but responding after the issue posted have been properly considered and as much as necessary studied. That “deeper” approach actually saves much more time and effort/digital ink than mere ‘off the top of my head” shallow bantering. So I would first like to see the context of what you are proposing. Contrary to what some people have typically assumed from my various writings, I actually do not have the “(extemporaneous) gift of gab” (in good company evidently: 2 Cor 10:10), and I actually much more prefer this because the highest frustration of my research and writing ministry has been in having to correct the ‘fluff” that people, especially preachers, with the “gift of gab” just mindless spew out. So I prefer to have a knack for (first) deeply studying things out…and in just the field of Biblical Studies, there also is indeed much more that needs to be done there.

So I am opened to discussion, as long as it will primarily be rigorously factual, and not firstly theoretical (=philosophical for you, and thus theological for me). Let’s first examine the facts that actually lay the foundation for our “theories|theologies”. And btw, in the famous Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye Debate, Nye was, to his great credit, most honest enough to admit that his evolutionary theory, still did not provide an answer as to a sourcing origin. And also, quite pertinently here, Ken Ham rightly show that an evolutionary view is merely a theoretical take on the facts which are available and observed by both sides here. And as he and others have soundly shown|substantiated|demonstrated, I have found that the view of Creation found in the Bible actually has provided the best explanation for those observable facts.

(Btw, sorry for not splitting this response between the two posts here.)

]]>
By: Dylan Walker (Skeptimus Prime) http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-186 Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:02:00 +0000 http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-186 We are simply going around in circles at this point so I suggest letting this go. We clearly have fundamentally different views of reality here, as evidence by the fact that you are making arguments which clearly seem air tight to you but quite frankly just strike me as silly. I don’t want to be insulting but that is how your arguments seem to me, and repeatedly asking me to investigate things which I’ve already looked at and decided is hogwash isn’t really getting us anywhere.

What I have presented does not actually qualify as a “just-so” story because these prophecies are (predominantly) looking far into the future, which was long after these prophecies were penned, for their fulfillment, with developments which just could not have been forseen, let alone accurately depicted.

The reason it’s a just so story is that whether you realize it or not you have just shoehorned these prophecies into events after the fact, and as I’ve pointing out several times they actual predictions are incredibly vague, and no amount of you claiming they are really really detailed and accurate does anything to change my opinion here. I know you have been probably trained for years to look at these things a certain way, so it’s hard for you to get out of that mindset and realize that not everyone thinks this way, but I’ve had the exact same arguments with Muslims who are certain that the Quran has details about biology and history and what not that the authors couldn’t have known. Both they and you are reaching far beyond what the actual text says.

I’m fairly comfortable sticking with my claim of banality because I don’t think that the “prophecies” you offer are as accurate as you actually think.

Telling me I have the wrong theology is fairly meaningless to me, because on the other end of this is some other Christian who says YOU have the wrong theology, but for the most part I have no independent way of determining which one of you is right.

Personally I don’t see how your arguments about time would have any bearing on any of these arguments about prophecy, and this is also an area where your ignorance in philosophy kinda shows through. The reason why most theologians argue that God knows the future directly is that in order to be god he must, by definition, exist outside of time, and thus the future isn’t the future to god. I.E. God created all matter, and time is a function of the interrelation of matter so if he created the universe then he created time, further if God exists withing the constraints of time then he isn’t omnipotent.

Of course existing outside of time does create other problems for theologians, I.E. a being that exists outside of time cannot act because acting implies change which implies movement from one moment to another through time, but the theologians can argue about that.

In regards to your “philosophical” barring, which frankly are straw-manly and closedly circular to me: A psychics actually are influenced by Satan (yet he is limited by God as to what he can or cannot do (e.g. 1 Kgs 22:19-23). “Time-travel” has not provided any verifiable evidence that it is feasible.

There is a strawman here but it’s yours not mine. I actually made it clear I don’t believe in either one, and holy crap psychics don’t need satanic powers to do their job because they are all fake. You, whether you admit it or not, have a lot in common with those who believe in psychics because “psychics” use make use of many of the same cognitive biases that lead you to believe in prophecy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

In any case, I was not making an argument for either one of those things, my point was that I find the existence of God equally unbelievable and so without some evidence beyond the prophecy itself I have no way of determining which incredibly unlikely thing is actually responsible for the event. Telling me you don’t think time travel is possible doesn’t really deal with my problem, because I don’t think God exists either. Do you better understand my issue now?

I can bet that you have never encounter the Biblically, fully-verifiable interpretation of that Dan 9:24-27 prophecy that I have studied out and presented

Everyone thinks they are special, if i had a dollar for every Christian who was certain that they had found an argument I’ve never heard and that is so brilliant I’ll convert the moment I hear it.

I read lots of books on prophecy when I was a believer, I’ve skimmed your arguments and they aren’t the least bit original or convincing to me. I remember what it’s like to be an evangelist, you really want to believe that you have found the one air tight argument that will convert unbelievers; trust me you haven’t.

]]>
By: NJKProject144 http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-184 Tue, 03 Feb 2015 07:22:00 +0000 http://www.skeptimusprime.net/2013/11/14/kirsten-powers-conversion-story-makes-me-sad/#comment-184 -For some reason you misunderstood and wrongly conflated what I said and meant. I think it should be easy, and for even a non-believer, to differentiate as to what is a prophecy in the Bible and what is not. The books of Daniel and Revelation, which I am focusing on here are explicitly clear that these are eschatological (e.g. Dan 8:17, 19) prophetic dreams and visions from God (i.e., Dan 2:1, 19; 7:1-2; 8:1-2; 9:20-23ff; 10:1ff; Rev 1:1-3; cf. Num 12:6). It is the CONTENT (caps for emphasis, not shouting), of those dreams and vision which are encrypted to keyed symbols. The issue of Classical Prophecies, such as in Isaiah 40-55, are another topic, and these requires one to be even more Spiritually initiated to be able to see their Spiritual, present day, application. But like I said, these are a more advanced issue.

The basic reasons why unbelievers, and even Christians can’t make accurate, or any, sense out of Bible prophecy, is because they are not employing God’s method of letting the Bible interpret itself, and also most Christians adhere to Unbiblical teachings which inherently bar them from having proper interpreting insight…and that is actually how they have come to fulfill Bible Prophecy (e.g., About Spiritual Babylon (Rev 17)). If one is ignoring what the Bible says that Historical Babylon was all about, and instead whimsically and arbitrary claims that it is Iraq, then they’ll never have the proper understanding, indeed claiming e.g. that Saddam Hussein was the Antichrist. (Up to a time Christians, pointedly Protestants had the right understandings here, i.e., in the time of the Reformers, but then they deludedly lost their way.)

What I have presented does not actually qualify as a “just-so” story because these prophecies are (predominantly) looking far into the future, which was long after these prophecies were penned, for their fulfillment, with developments which just could not have been forseen, let alone accurately depicted.

It is a historical fact that Rome was able to hold a hegemonic empire the longest, for ca. 600 year (168 B.C. to 476 A.D., through it strong military might) That is what Dan 2:40 depicted. Then the clay and iron mixture in the 2 feet and 10 toes represent a mixture of human dealings and that military strength combinedly used to maintain any hegemonic union after that. I don’t have the time to rehash the detailed explanation of these prophecies. (Do see the video presentations that I have referenced).

-As actually with Bible Prophecy, you can always examine its various parts, and/or just read its detailed (inventing) “manual/text”, to figure out how it works…and how it actually comes to produce that final “clear” picture. God has given the key, code and method for Bible prophecy in His Manual/text: the Bible

-I actually misspoke about your 300 B.C. date, mainly because, it makes no sense to me to still argue against the prophetic predictiveness of Daniel if you even belief that it was written in the 300’s B.C. (I.e., instead of the Biblically stated date of the 500 B.C.). So I confused your insistence with the claims of others who say that it was merely written in the 300 A.D. And it is rather collective and harmonious testimony of all (Eschatological) prophecies (i.e. in Daniel and Revelation), and not just Dan 2, which provide that trustworthy evidencing. If you have not gone through an entire prophetic seminar, as the “Discover Prophecy” one I referred you to, then you of course won’t begin to see this full picture evidence. E.g., solving a Crime Scene is typically not done from just one piece of evidence, but from all available evidence considered and properly fitted together.

Again you have the wrong theology about Bible prophecy. It is not someone, or God, “knowing” what will happen in the future, but God decalring what He will effectuate and orchestrate in the future (Dan 2 :21). Big difference. The “knowing” view is quite common in Christianity, but it is just not Biblical. Christians who have the Open Theist view are closer to what the Bible actually teaches on this, but still come up short. As I discussed in this post,* the Bible rather teaches a “ForePlanning’ View.

* http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2009/10/book-preview-god-all-mighty.html

Quite seriously, do Dan 2, or better Dan 9:24-27, have “another fulfillment”. Like I said, many Christian already do, but the proof of truth is by what the Bible itself can actually substantiate and not the, really infinite, claims that people can subjectively make. Event Accuracy, Timeliness (for timed prophecies), and also Biblical and Spiritual coherence are the key elements which a claim of actual fulfillment must have. Again most Christians fail such a testing due mainly to underlying faulty theology and/or doctrinal beliefs. Which is why a full prophecy seminar, like the one I referred you to also involves, even mainly firstly, Theological presentations (including about Salvation) and also Doctrinal ones. Only then can most prophecies be properly examined and presented.

Btw, also demonstrate your “banal” claim now. Given the present and recent history and political situation, with the United States actually being the Prophetic Eschatological “Babylon”* go ahead and make precise predictions about its coming future, as well as, other Countries/Unions which will surpass it in its present world influential hegemony. And mind you, Bible Prophecy actually has much to predict as to what will happen beyond the present Superpower “reign” of the U.S. (E.g. Rev 13:11-18; 16:12-16; 18:1-24) Let’s see if you could jump that supposed “low bar”…E.g., Dan 2:40-43ff certainly did in regards to Rome, the Divided Roman Empire =(Medieval Europe) right through the EU today…

* http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2011/10/biblical-prophetic-babylon-loud-cry.html

In regards to your “philosophical” barring, which frankly are straw-manly and closedly circular to me: A psychics actually are influenced by Satan (yet he is limited by God as to what he can or cannot do (e.g. 1 Kgs 22:19-23). “Time-travel” has not provided any verifiable evidence that it is feasible. Again, to not have to wastingly engage all such many false claimings, I again challenge you to go through and entire prophetic seminar and see if, at the end, when you have the full/Big picture, it all does make PERFECT sense. Engaging you in your piecemeal arguments is like trying to argue with a blind person who things that the trunk of the elephant he is holding is the whole elephant itself and thus just refuse to believe the seeing person who is seeing the full elephant and has told him what it actually looks like. The proof of God is not drawn from a single prophecy…though the 70 Weeks is great proof about Jesus Christ. And given what is actually the case in Christianity, I can bet that you have never encounter the Biblically, fully-verifiable interpretation of that Dan 9:24-27 prophecy that I have studied out and presented…and there is indeed much more of such prophetic evidence pieces beyond that.

]]>