Space Merchant

There is no shift in doctrine because everyone agrees on what this verse conveys, as you can see "EPI" is seen in the verse --> https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_1909.htm Because there is no change whatsoever. If there is a change, you'd have to prove that there is something else there that does not correlate with G#1909. Literally has nothing much to do with the subject matter at hand, and according to what you conveyed before, seems to be in reverse. Therefore attempting to use this when the Concordances are there is indefensible, granted the verse in question the context has not changed regardless of which form of 1909 is used. That being said, the next response would be the past regarding Strong's in other discussion, you best you be prepared for that because the way I see it in the situation of Strong's is nothing more than the KJVO discussions I've been in. @Outta Here Starting to realize that this is a repeat of 2018. I remember stating he following:

Actually I do, hence my citation, JB. And? None of the 2 violates the Greek Strong's granted the word in question is still 1909, if it is not 1909, then you have a problem. lol what? You can't be serious.... "upon the earth" and "over the earth" there is no shift in teaching and or interpretation. The context of the verse/passage has not been negated whatsoever. Therefore, the Concordances outweighs your view here, regardless. That being said, there are commentaries for EVERY SINGLE VERSE in the Bible. And granted as to what is seen by these studies, it puts your notion to shame, in this regard. No viewpoint is withheld. It is only you saying that, but the commentary disagrees with you, as is, with those in the Strong's community. The basic significance of the Greek word in question "epi" is upon, on, or before, over, etc, for that is not the only meaning. When used in connection with power, authority, or dignity, epi can also mean over as well. Therefore nothing has been shifted. If a given translation is possible according to the known usage and rules of Greek (Greek Grammar and Structure), it is intellectually dishonorable to make accusation of a translation trying to make it fit his current beliefs. The context points to the notion of the one who rules from heaven. And since “epi” can legitimately be translated over and or similar within G#1909, one can see this as the option that most likely reflects the intended meaning. That being said, that statement of yours does not make much sense granted that the context of this verse alone is easily understood, in fact, nearly 100% of people who study the Bible, specifically Revelations, understand what this verse is about. As for context: It is regarding God's accomplishment. The purpose of restoring the earth under Kingship by means of the heavenly Kingdom, that consist of Lord Christ Jesus as the King, accompanied by the chosen ones [priests], whom have authority. As a whole, due to their divinity and connection, they make it possible to bring forth the earth into what God intended it to be, harmoniously aligned with God's original promise, thus fulfilling this purpose of restoration. More context: Verse 10. - And hast made us unto our God kings and priests; and didst make them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests. Of those whom thou didst redeem from every nation, thou didst make a kingdom and priests. Wordsworth remarks that these honours conferred upon the redeemed imply duties as well as privileges. They receive the princely honours conferred upon them only on condition that they also become priests, presenting themselves, their souls and bodies, a living sacrifice to God. If you wish, you can post their view here, or quote them granted you deem the view is different, then we can see what is actually correct regarding this verse because from what I have seen, nearly everyone is in agreement with what this verse conveys, even the Restorationist community agrees, as is with even Bible adept commentators. The ones who do not agree are the ones who Creed adheres of MSC. That being said, no viewpoint as been changed by anyone in this regard..... There is no deception, granted one can see the context of this verse is in regards to Jesus and the Chosen ones, having a role in the restoration of the earth, which correlates with God's actual purpose found in The Genesis Act of Creation, not to mention, God's Promise, found in that same book. There is only one explanation granted the context. The problem here is you are injecting your viewpoint from an modern English speaker rather than one who applies Hermeneutics in the Scripture itself. That being said, I thought your focus was on the wording, now you want to speak of explanation granted it is an obvious one? I suggest you do the research because the your view vs. the legitimate view of this verse is vastly different: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/revelation/5-10.htm It is not about teaching, it is about context. The Interlinear is a literal Greek Translation into the Language, however, the latter is a modern day version and or revised, if need be. The teaching regarding the Kingdom of God and who is to be stationed in said Kingdom has not changed, or has ever changed. They haven't forgotten apparently, for they have it listed. Interlinear Bibles in general and or the Hebrew to English Translations are primarily for those that prefer the literal choice, and or do so to learn what this word means and or how it looks in the language in question, etc. Most modern readers know of these translations too, but prefer to stick to the modern translations. You do realize that God's Kingdom is in heaven - right? God rule will be over the earth from HIS heavenly realm (Revelation 11:15), This is why the Bible calls, in 2 Timothy 4:18, The Heavenly Kingdom. God's King will rule from God's Kingdom, and is accompanied by the chosen ones. They govern all things on the earth. The key element here is this: not the area, but the authority which they exercise. What amazes me is how you missed this context... And no - regardless of who is of Zion, they are not part time workers, if that is what you are implying. Seriously - I strongly suggest you read the BASICS in Bible Strong's Concordances because as of now, you are sounding like the KJV-Onlyist I deal with.

And yet nothing here brands them as benefactors, hence my previous response on the difference between a benefactor who leads vs. a member among the Christ who leads. And quote: As of what is seen, you've added your own exegesis, granted, if someone were to read your citation in full, it is counted against you. You've done this before, but it seems you continue to go down that route.

In the truther community, by the majority of them in the US and EU, BLM has not just become political, it has become religious minus anything pertaining to God, but religious in a way to deem all police officers as guilty when not all policemen are bad, nor are they racist. BLM is a manifestation of hypocrisy. Therefore, as of recent, I do speak on the matter of BLM, against them and what their timeline is, however, their claims are forfeit to the point they have younger people believing their lies.

@Srecko Sostar You do not need to rely on Jehovah's Witnesses for Strong's. Also no one is speaking of Prepositions and masculines/feminines. We are on the topic of Concordances..... As for the word in which @Outta Here is in the right, as with the Strong's. There is no change, there is no misinterpretation. Therefore, there is no error. Even all this time, your nature remains the same - deviation. That being said, the claim of yours is false granted we have the concordances and early manuscripts if need be, be it public. That single image does not prove your case here.

I posted this a long time ago, I'd have to go treasure hunting; will post here when I do find it. One I can recall is DBSA (Dawn Bible Students Association), who Reslight, who is a Bible student with stated to have studied Russell for 6 decades now has mentioned this group several times. They have a similar belief of Satan being cast our and Jesus' Kingship. But the study of the Pyramidololgy was quite popular among Christians, especially those dwelling in Numerology.

Granted due to Srecko's past, he does not like using Bible Hub because it, as with the to others, will be an instrument that would engineer their own demise 6 ways through Sunday.

They are both correct. Case and point. https://studybible.info/strongs/G1909 https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/G1909/epi.htm https://biblehub.com/greek/1909.htm As I told @4Jah2me , the same thing. granted all the roots point to 1909, there is no violation of Scripture in the Greek text. Translations indeed look different, but each word still lines up accordingly with the Strong's number itself. Now, here is an legitimate example. I linked to @4Jah2me 1 Timothy 3:16. There IS A VIOLATION in this verse. This Strong's was added G#2316. The other violates, in passage form would be Acts 8:37, this verse does not exist, hence omitted. Another would be Revelations 1:11 whereas the KJV added a sentence to this verse, likewise to 1 John 5:7. Is it not wise to address this information instead of something that is already deemed as correct?

Can you show me where you address me that question? Because the thing with me, I do not like misinformation and false claims, so I would like you to refresh our memory Address what you've stated. I'm applying 1 John 4:1 for this one. So I await... That being said, as I recall telling you, which I can even quote myself, you can agree with them or disagree with them, you can even hate them until Hinnom suddenly starts burning again. But the fact of the matter is, misinformation, falsehood, and misconceptions deems refutation, regardless. If Witness' source believe JWs have guns in their churches, of course I will refute it because it is nonsense. Jack deem Muslims as evil since birth, of course I will refute it. I do not adhere to lies, as I said, I am a TRUTHER, that term holds a whole lot of water because Truthers do not like misinformation, i.e. A Truther can be against religion as a whole, organized or not, but he/she will not accept lies about a faith community, and often the types to, alluded to the 1st Amendment if need be. Often times, they agree/disagree on somethings, but do take lesson to apply it to everyday life, for just receive, Truthers brought up today's events and Sodom and Gomorrah. Refuted so you are a year or two late. As I pointed out, and what JWInsider pointed out to a Trinitarian on here who, invited us to discussion personally, we said otherwise vs your claim, even the JWs who chimed in addressed the same thing regarding God's Day. If you want, I can link both threads of this discussion. We also address to the Atheist here on this forum who brought up the same question. Bottom-line - God knows who is for him, those saved in God's day is for an obvious reason vs. those who are not. And somehow you attempted to link me into believing in interfaith and homosexuality. As a Christian, that is, to me, seen as insulting. I even addressed to you Unitarianism is different, each of them, comparing me to them was unwise, for as I noted to you, I have a strong hatred to interfaith. If you know what Babylon the Great well, you know my hatred of the true enemy. No, what I convey is I address the truth to misinformation directed to them. Likewise with correcting others on other Abrahamic faiths. The misinformation comes from the mainstream Christianity groups. Does it look like it? I will not accept falsehood due to someone's emotional disdain. Facts and truth. I do not wish to be one sided as you are. If someone tells something false, is it not wise for one to speak the truth? In this regard, I will give you an example, you stated all of them are guilty and practically loveless, how do you know this? You don't. Because you are going off on your own, for you cannot define everyone due to your misfortune. That is like Iran blaming the US and the UK for the actions of a few eggs in gov't. That does not mean we all commit evil now does it? Therefore, when things of this nature is said, I do not sit around and accept it - I speak. I take action.

Do you have a source? Those of Zion are to operate as such, this is elementary Bible knowledge concerning the chosen ones. There is notion to those who are tasked to teach the people of God in the aftermath, so I do not see what you are conveying here. You seem to be missing the context regarding the verse with that statement. There is no debate, they are not in error in this regard. Regardless, it is only a problem if there is a Hebraic/Greek violation, then you would have a problem and in their part, it would be a critical problem. As for the I.L, it does not use TR, the TR is a later source, which the 1611 uses. Therefore "on the earth" and "over the earth" have no issue. ON and OVER are both the same Strong's. UPON is another one, if that is, you checked the verse on Bible Hub. The Strong's number is exactly the same, therefore they are both right. It is only an error or a mis-translation if the number does not line up with the source. So for example, if 1909 was somehow 1988, you'll have a problem. You are going off on your own exegesis at this rate. Translations of any kind stick to, or try to stick to the originally source, going with what I know about the NWT, regarding this verse, they are sticking to the original source. Granted I mentioned Greek Strong's, they used Westcott-Hort, which is the Batman to The Trinity's Joker, in this sense. Granted G#1909 is in use, they are, as is with most translations for this verse, are in the right. Both of them. Yes. The writers were inspired to write the Scriptures, as for after the death of the Apostles, spirit led ones picked up and or found the manuscripts and translated the Hebrew and Greek text. Sadly, due to the craziness that is Christianity in the past, people came up with their own narratives and later manuscripts were formed with errors, which resulted in some translations having errors and or not even correctly lining up with the Strong's. By those who provided the Textual Criticism, yes. If it were not for them, Yahweh would be seen as "female", Jesus would have been seen as a hater of women and or insulting the poor, as is with having the ability to make tress burst into song, and being able to grow into the size of a giant. Makes you wonder how things would be like if it were not for Textual Criticism and Strong's. You'd probably believe today that of inanimate objects "literally" sing about Jesus. Or to the JWs here, they would think and or preach in their gospel that Jehovah is a "she". Such things are absurd, and we should be thankful for those who did what they did, even giving their lives in the process. Bible History is interesting, of course. That being said, I strongly urge you to read and or learn about Strong's. I suggest you start here: https://biblehub.com/strongs.htm But I do warn you, there are some Strong's out there that apply later manuscripts, which can result in some of their own additions, to which both Jews and Muslims today often point out. That is a story for another day.

I always keep tabs it just comes from memory. Even on myself in order to recall something, hence my memory is as thick as the skin of a rhino. Others have done the same, in my regard. Anyways, But you have to convey the statement correctly otherwise there will be confusion. You should know this because the both of us stated the same thing in the past, but now here it is different. So in regards to the latter, the claim of denying of which you provided is in err. I believe I lectured you in the past of what a Benefactor is. A Benefactor (Biblical term, not the modern English term, yet somewhat similar), well the word used in that verse comes from the word (Ancient Greek: Εὐεργέτης, Euergétēs), which means that an individual who is doing good to and or for others. The term is associated with honorable titles for important people, for instance, a Prince, for these people are recognized for their contributions and the like. These Benefactors are the types to take a lead among the people, however, it should not be confused those among the Christ, to mimic as if they are and or align themselves with world rulers. Faithful servants of the Lord are the opposite. They do not partake to be like rulers of the world, but rather, they focus on what it means to be a Christian, a follower of the Christ and lead by example and lesson, as the marginal references in the verses you provided provides context. In terms of ministering and serving, this citation from verse 26 gives the answer. Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24, which describes the work of those holding religious office within the Christian Church Congregation. We had this conversation parallel conversation on this before, to which you accused me of being misogynistic for agreeing with Scripture. That being said, to deem them as benefactors in this regard when they are not is a misapplication of the verse, therefore, your mixing of verses to fit your own exegesis, as I have and the other alleged chosen one this forum call you out on. This is especially the fact you are dealing with modern day Restorationist, for regardless if they are striving to be of the early church and or lacking, Restorationist will never be caught dead granted of what you claim. It is in-bedded in their Christology after all. Clearly, but this is not the case, and you make this claim when the latter is the opposite, hence why I pointed out it does not make any sense. This goes back to our early discussion about the Spiritual Stones of the Spiritual House, which what you said there contradicts present day regarding the matter. I do not see as to how and why you fancy misapplication. That being said, my question to you is what if you were in the had said something that had denied even what the Christ as taught, should we look at you as the same, that is, using your claim? Because anything can easily be linked should you say what is not true in regards to question.

Unrelated, but remember the AntiJWs I mentioned in the past? These guys do not just dislike JWs, but they also dislike Christianity as a whole. According to them, they spotted some ExJws using the current situation as a tool of some sort. Reasons why I asked you lot if you think you are safe, for you have even some Christians out there that is pretending to be protesters to destroy their own property to fake victimhood. Anyways, Well that is understandable. The crazy thing is due to Cancel Culture, denying BLM will result in a number of things against you. Some people lost their jobs for pointing out the hypocrisy of BLM. Granted my position because of the skin of my color, people expect me to support BLM. But I do not. These fanatics want to defund the police and deem anyone a threat if you think otherwise. Granted I dwell in business and all things cooperate, I have seen business executive's too afraid to say they do not support BLM, for if they do, they will not just be fired, but their name will be dragged around the mud and tarred, branded a heretic by the US, the EU and Asia. Can you imagine that, your name being thrown about in this matter. That being said, never accept the mindless mantra of BLM. Soon. But the whole narrative of seeing Yahweh, Jehovah, YHWH being written, vandalized on to property as well as Jesus and or Yeshua being written all over the place, it is understandable as to those out there that seems to be ready for God's day when they haven't even gotten to the End Time Tribulations yet. On the other side of the spectrum, the UN has made a small movement, as is with the powers that be. These things alone tells you things will not return to normalcy 100%, even for you guys.

I do not associate myself with anyone. My concern is that I do not like misinformation and falsehood. I get asked the same question about Islam too, does not make me a Muslim, but, if something is said in error, I will speak the truth in the matter. This goes for the Abrahamic Faiths. This also connects with my study of religion and theology as a whole, as is with my position as a Truther. Depends on what form of Unitarianism you are referring to, but it should be obvious as to where I stand. Therefore, if someone sees something wrong, of course they will speak truth. But mainstream Christians such as yourself deem people to be silent, and you kind have a not of making accusations because they do not apply mainstream Creeds and the like. Of course you already know what I am referring to. That being said, there are churches that will not open. There are those who defy the government and end up having consequences follow suit. You never asked me that question. You did try to insult me with that Biblical Unitarian link last time. Last I check, I am not interfaith, I do not support Kairos, Peak, or Elijah's Interfaith Institution. Nor do I support, but rather, I am against the United Nation's L.T. Also, Also, as God is living, I would NEVER support homosexuality and their movement, hence your link. Even outside of that, if it is Hermeneutics alone, you attack that, when the notion is solely of the Bible. That being said, as I recall your last attempt failed:

@Witness That statement does not make anyone correlation to any sense. To deny Jesus is to deviate from what he teaches, to what his God said unto him, unto the people [you]. As pointed out before the notion of Excommunication has indeed started with the Christ, this was not engineered by any man, as the Bible shows. Also you are missing verses again, just wanted to point that out, for possible the 33rd time it seems.

Ignorance is a bliss, no? Actually my sources were from the Strong's Concordances itself (something I take with seriousness). If you can read carefully, you can see I linked a source(s). I didn't include manuscripts because it would seem it would be a bit of a handful for you. That being said, the correction is not by translation. The source is by Manuscript Sources. There is a different, i.e. There is a reason as to WHY some verses are omitted from revised versions of most translations vs. the KJV. But I do invite you if you want, let's make it a challenge, for this is what I live for. Pick any verse from any translation. CSE members love Hermenutical/Scriptural challenges concerning Bible verse/passage translations. It is too much of a puzzle for Srecko. Perhaps a difficult as that equals to that of the mystery of a Tomato being either fruit or vegetable - too mind boggling, to difficult for him to comprehend. @Srecko Sostar On the contrary, there's a concordance for that too. Also God cannot be dead, nor can he die. God is not even a man according to the Bible, even by Job's own words. God is a spirit, as stated by the Christ. Seriously.... That is elementary, I really do not have to bring up the very thing you hate the most ----->>>>> Biblical Facts. Good times for I remember that inevitable struggle.

Outside of JWs, there are groups that adhere to the 1914 teaching of Jesus being King. I had posted a list before of existing and extinct groups that held that view. Everyone knew about what was studied regarding Giza, however, there is more that us of mankind do not know, so it is best to tread the path than stress out over when it will happen. Likewise with Issac Newton. Only God knows, for we all are imperfect. That being said, we all know, practically everyone here knows and can agree God has made Jesus King. Well a second Civil War is spoke of as a possibility granted the situation coupled with an uptick in religious tension, people pretending they are better than the Christ and his God in order to carter to those in conquest for peace and security. I'd like to add that has you or anyone else been paying attention to Babylon the Great's movements?

@César Chávez Pretty much, a Christian congregation itself is the church. The church is the people, and the head of the church is the Christ.

Pardon, I do not understand what you are conveying in this regard. My only issue is I do not like misconception and falsehood of any subject, this includes faith communities. You can agree/disagree with someone of that community, but to speak of something that is misleading and or off the rails, that demands a refute. Outside of that my biggest focus and concern is mainstream Christendom, and the ill use of their own exegesis when it comes to Scripture. Also I am a truther, so I take misinformation very seriously too. That being said, the fact you mentioned Bill The Kid and referring to him as a parrot.... Relation to John Butler? He refereed to me as a parrot several times when I corrected him on history, race, child abuse statistics by race/sex to which he deemed me racist when I simply use facts straight from the F.B.I. (Federal Bureau of Investigation) itself, and Strong's and Tradition vs. Bible Teachings. Mr. Butler's engine runs on emotion to the point he evades facts, and the last time I responded to him was concerning an issue, to which he has never updated anyone of of us on regarding a CoCA, something, as I mentioned in my solutions, which is quite difficult to combat even by means of the Law of the Land in the UK (even in the US).

That's G#1909, therefore, no issue as the Strong's stands as fact. As I recall, I told both you and Witness this in the past, for I remember one of you tried to twisted the Greek Strong's regarding darkness, smoke, destroyer, and I believe pit as well. We will leave it at that for I do not want to expose the cracks in your armure manquant de durabilite, in this thread. That being said, you guys liked to link biblehub, therefore regarding what @Outta Here mentioned, this is, obviously not to your liking, correct --> https://biblehub.com/ephesians/4-6.htm It would be wise to sharpen yourself and go to Bible Hub and learn, or simply google Strong's Concordance. That being said, The Most High is above all, in the heavens and on earth. No one is equal to him and or can surpass him. He is the God of the Christ, he is the God of me, he is the God of you. @Witness All those verses cited, as pointed out regarding Strong's are correct, but to go around the concordances raises issue. Keep that in mind.

Or it just shows you do not understand and or lack the elementary knowledge of Strong's Concordances. Regardless of translation, it is unwise to not check the strongs and go about your own understanding. Granted the other two were shot down on Hebrew and Greek Strongs, I will inform you of the following. Strong's Concordances' purpose is not to provide content or commentary about the Bible, but to provide an index to the Bible. It allows the reader to find words where they appear in the Bible in a correct matter. This index allows a student of the Bible to refind a phrase and or passage previously studied. It also lets the reader directly compare how the same word may be used elsewhere in the Bible. In this way Strong provides an independent check against translations, and offers an opportunity for greater, and more technically accurate understanding of text. Revelations 5:10 You stated the following: From the Greek it reads ..... and they are reigning upon the earth. But in the NWT it reads ........ and they are to rule as kings over the earth. The Bible that Jehovah's Witnesses use, NWT (dunno which one you are looking at be it org or revised), shows the following: and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.” The reality of this is the fact that, there is no issue with the verse, granted the Strong's line up correctly. It is only a problem if the is no Strong's indication whatsoever. [1] There is no Strong's Violation The answer is simple. The word "Over" is under G#1909 Some more facts: For this passage, majority of Translations are in agreement with the Strong's concerning this verse [https://biblehub.com/revelation/5-10.htm] There is no outside notion of the word either. As for "The" the same thing applies, that is G#3588. On the other side of the spectrum, there are some out there who try to argue a specific word in the Strong's although it can be incorrect, An example would be the young woman vs. virgin usage in a specific verse found in Isaiah. The irony with this instance, virgin isn't part of the Strong's but due to Christian Tradition, they added it granted the citation says it is incorrect. I had a field day with this one too. That being said, it is only a violation IF it is a different # and or non-existent. I am linking an example I posted a long time ago when this forum was a debate battlegrounds. The below is an example of adding a word in the text that is NOT lining up with the Strong's in a verse:

Granted I speak in regards of what the Bible says, regarding JWs, as is with what happen during the days of Jews and Gentiles - God knows who is for him. Even in the past, the leaders of these church congregations are not perfect, some of them are mistaken driven, and they learn as they go, and apply, yet despite all that, they still continue to act and or partake in the role of The Faithful Servant. This can be said of the Restorationist, the connection is there, so there would not be as much to faze them, hence the mindset and or how the Jehovah's Witnesses operate as is with their Christology and the like.

Well it is best you be careful because the mob mentality of BLM has spilled in parts of the EU, granted, mob mentality is something that is common and can get dangerous as recent past events in the UK. For me, I am black, you'd be surprise of the fact the more truth I speak the more enemies I make, especially regarding the fact despite me being neutral, I do not agree or support with BLM, granted, the majority of us can see the real problem of the world by ignoring the fabricated problems made by sheeple. You need to be careful of news articles too. For not all of them speak truth and can often be objective to the point of one-siding things. As you already know, I do not like falsehood or misinformation be it if you agree with someone or not, but this does not stop the MSM sadly. They play on emotions and disregard absolute fact. For what they are doing is pushing racial tension using George Floyd as a martyr, as is with possibly soon to be, the recent killing of Maurice Gordon. The BLM has shifted into something different and has since lost what it stood for when it was birthed. The sad thing of it all, granted Religion on the spotlight, the ideologies are being expressed in BLM in a negative matter, i.e. recall the story and lesson of the Christ when he washed the feet of his Apostles? They took it and used it into something else, therefore, BLM turned into a religious and political movement going about their ideas negatively, on a warpath, and to you in the UK, should tension rise, it will be a very difficult time for you, granted you have covid-19 around the corner. As for religions, there are, as I told Matthew, religions that gave into the wild beast, practically a huge chuck of mainstream Christendom. This is why I questioned Arunna if she thinks she is safe once it is discovered she is not part of or support the latter ideology. That being said, as I had told people here about a year ago, such things will come, us Truthers are ridiculously vigilant and fact adhering.

If you missed this point then it is safe to assume that the powers that be can easily sway you without notice, and without you knowing. especially the fact that such within the faction defends the very nation that has, taunted to withheld medication, as is with "erase" their own people, as they had done so with the female model/actress. If we can take an example of our past, or that of Sweden, the lockdown with authoritarian additions enabled more people to suffer. Granted the MSM will not reveal this to you, but on the other side of the spectrum, people such as myself see it, for a man who is alone with his child on a beach should not succumb to brute force or the neighborhood snitch under mayor's orders. I can speak the same for the EU, mainly the UK, for people have spoken up. That will do you no good, granted there are religious institutions that remain to keep the worship buildings closed until further notice. Remember Matthew, the church is the people - not the building. The building is only a means of congregating. Just because some religious institutions are opening up for service, does not mean the rest will follow suit, more so, the fact some of the churches opened up, some of them actually, no, willfully accepted the mark of the beast concerning the protesting and rioting, which reflects what I had said here a year or two ago.

@admin Sadly the Mainstream Media has been pressing the Racism Card. Thus adding gasoline and more wood to the fire to make it bigger and bigger. Likewise as I told everyone here, every group has a few bad eggs, but to condemn and or state all people of said group are guilty is foolishness because a few bad eggs to not make up the whole group.

It is more of a running gag on this forum. Apparently even for me, if anyone states a small bit of Old English or simply say "That being said," automatically it brands someone as Space Merchant. I remember someone assume this one member, I believe it was Alex and they assume Alex was me. Then again, I always say that for a final notation in a response, discussion, challenge and or debate.