It has been said that majority of scientists look at evolution as something factual. One of the prominent evidence they prefer to emphasize with is the archives of fossil records kept as proof of evolution. For example, they institutionalized hominid fossils to purport human evolution through alleged fossil changes between similar species, such that they thought its a gradual changes of one species on transitional points toward becoming a human being, that is a man.

Let us see on these evidences.

It say:

This image does a great job representing the changes in the skull

This image is does a good job showing the number of years it takes for hominid evolution to occur. It also does a good job showing the earliest and most recent hominid skull structures.

I found this image to be helpful because it does a good job depicting the different structures of the skull in different time periods.

This image is helpful because it is comparing and contrasting image A and image B. Also, the labels help to understand the differences.

This is a cartoon of hominid evolution. It is a little corny but it does represent the stages of hominid evolution well.

This image does a great job resembling the different stages of hominid evolution.

This image of hominid evolution is interesting to look at because it shows the skeletons of the hominids.

This timeline helped me to understand hominid evolution because it is simple rather than busy with a ton of words.

End of Article.

There you go. They have shown different bone structures of different kinds of hominids. Notice the similarities of it as shown though it has differences yet they call these differences as the gradual changes these hominids took in that evolutionary line to becoming man.

Simply put, they were saying, that humans came from an ape-like ancestor and has evolved gradually as seen through that process of fossil changes until it become man. Therefore these different kinds of hominids are the transitional points to becoming man.

The problem is, there is a missing link. There is no convincing proof or anything publicized to show that indeed there is evolutionary relationship between these allegedly gradual changes. It has not sufficiently show, direct relation between these bone structures. What they have shown are similarities and differences between bone structures but is that conclusive enough to be reliable? What if, these hominids are unrelated in terms of evolutionary process? What if, these different hominids are different species as distinct and unrelated and having existed as an unevolved species? Unevolved in that manner of ape-like to human evolution.

Science has no answer for such questions. Fact is, it assumed the transitional links. They have not yet shown any evolutionary relationship between these hominids. They claim it as gradual change but where is the proof of relationship?

Nothing, if we are to consult the fossils.



Unang una, tinutuya ng mga INC members ang pagsamba ng MCGI na pinapahiwatig na wala kaming kaayusan. Me mga videos silang pinapakita at pictures na sa pagsamba e tila hinde ito maayos. Me natutulog, me sumasayaw, me nagcecelphone at me nagvivideo etc…

Ipinapahiwatig nila na ang gayong scenario ay hinde maayos kaya lumalabag daw kami sa doktrina ng kaayusan.

Dapat daw para maayos ang pagsamba e nakaayos sila ng pananamit, disente, at sa pagsamba hiwalay ang babae sa lalake, nakaupo silang lahat at walang unnecessary movements, at walang natutulog, nagcecelphone o nagvivideo.

Ganon daw ang maayos.

Dapat din daw, ang bahay sambahan e maayos din, at hinde mukhang palengke o kulungan ng baboy.

Ganon daw ang maayos.

1 Corinthians 14:40
[40]Let all things be done decently and in order.

Pero ang tanong, tama kaya sila sa interpretation nila? Saan sinabing yung “decently” at “in order” e dapat ipaliwanag sa unawa ng tao? Saan mababasa na dapat iinterpret ito sa pamamagitan ng dictionary?

Wala pong ganon. So bakit niyo kami pinupuna kung iba interpretation namin sa kaayusan?

Anong uri ng kaayusan ito kung ganon?

Unang una, hinde ito kaayusan sa paliwanag ng tao dahil ayon sa bibliya, kahit parang kulungan ng baboy ang bahay sambahan o kahit hinde disente ang pananamit e hinde ito ang batayan para sabihing hinde maayos ang pagsamba. Dahil hinde sa “appearance” nakabatay ang kaayusan.

John 7:24
[24]Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

So kita dito, na hinde literal na kaayusan ang tinutukoy, di ba?

So anong kaayusan ito?

Philippians 2:2
[2]Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

1 Corinthians 1:10
[10]Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Philippians 1:27
[27]Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;

Kita dito kung anong kaayusan ang tinutukoy. Ito yung pagkakaroon ng magkakaisang isip, pagibig, paghatol etc sa pagtupad sa ebanghelyo. Ito ang kaayusang sinasabi ni Pablo. Hinde ito yung literal na kaayusang physical, kasi wala sa “appearance” ang batayan nitong specific na kaayusan.

Halimbawa ng kaayusan e yung kaisahan sa pagiisip. Halimbawa nito e sa pagdarasal ng congregasyon, lahat kami e nakatirapa at nakaharap sa bandang silangan. Ito ang pinagkaisahan namin ayon sa pagsunod sa aral ng dios. Ang manalangin ayon sa custom ng sinaunang Israel na humaharap sa templo o jerusalem pag silay nasa ibang lugar. Jerusalem is the center of the world and by praying east nakaharap kami sa jerusalem.

1 Kings 8:28-30
[28]Yet have thou respect unto the prayer of thy servant, and to his supplication, O LORD my God, to hearken unto the cry and to the prayer, which thy servant prayeth before thee to day:
[29]That thine eyes may be open toward this house night and day, even toward the place of which thou hast said, My name shall be there: that thou mayest hearken unto the prayer which thy servant shall make toward this place.
[30]And hearken thou to the supplication of thy servant, and of thy people Israel, when they shall pray toward this place: and hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place: and when thou hearest, forgive.

Hinde abrogated yan kaya naturally, dapat ganapin as it say:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
[16]All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17]That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Pangalawa, iisang puno ang israel at christians, kaya gaganapin namin ang mga hinde abrogated na jewish customs.

Romans 11:16-17
[16]For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
[17]And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

Gayon din sa pagsamba, nagkakaisa kaming nagkakatipon pero ang mahalaga don e sumasamba kami. Hinde na mahalaga kung hinde kami disenteng manamit o hinde kami nakaupo lahat. Ang pinagkaisahan namin e yung pagkakatipon ayon sa aral ng dios para sumamba so on that sense, nasa kaayusan kami.

John 7:24
[24]Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Ito ang tunay na kaayusan: ang magkaisa sa pagsunod sa mga aral ng dios. Ngayon, alin sa amin ang me kaayusan ayon sa bibliya at contexto at hinde ayon sa haka haka at modern dictionary?


Let us look at some verses which have purported the allegation that god repented:

Genesis 6:6

The LORD repented (nacham) that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain

Jeremiah 18:8

If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent (nacham) of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

Jeremiah 26:3

If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent (nacham) me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.

Jonah 3:9

Who can tell if God will turn and repent (nacham), and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

The problem is, nothing in those verses clarify in what manner or definition was repentance intended to mean. Was it in human terms?

Obviously not as god dont repent in human terms as it say:

Numbers 23:19
[19]God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1 Samuel 15:11,29,35
[11]It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.
[29]And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.
[35]And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Therefore, to say god repents must not be taken by how we define repentance in the vernacular:

  • : to feel or show that you are sorry for something bad or wrongthat you did and that you want to do what is right

God repenting must be taken by how god contextually expressed the idea which in this case is not in human terms, or that is, to be sorry from wrong things done as nothing in god’s action is wrong.

Psalms 92:15
[15]To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.

Therefore, to have a clearer outlook on the subject, first of all we must not interpret repent by how our vernacular suggests but to see it through biblical scope, and how is repenting defined biblically? Let us read:

1 Chronicles 21:15
[15]And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

So as you can see, how repent was used, it was to stop what god has purposed to do so on correct perspective and deriving a conclusion from context that it wasnt how the vernacular defines it that matters, we have then to consider it in biblical terms. Repent simply means to stop what god has purposed to do. Nothing in those terms suggest any relation to what the vernacular suggests that is to be sorry from wrong doing.

Lastly, some translation used the word grieved instead of repent. Still, its logical seeing that god have felt emotion and hurt from our rebelliousness.

The fact of the matter is that God is not indifferent towards sinners but is hurt and angered by our sins and rebellion:

“How often they rebelled against Him in the wilderness And grieved Him in the desert!” Psalm 78:40

“You have bought Me not sweet cane with money, Nor have you filled Me with the fat of your sacrifices; Rather you have burdened Me with your sins, You have wearied Me with your iniquities.” Isaiah 43:24

“But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit; therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them.” Isaiah 63:10

“Then those of you who escape will remember Me among the nations to which they will be carried captive, how I have been hurt by their adulterous hearts which turned away from Me, and by their eyes which played the harlot after their idols; and they will loathe themselves in their own sight for the evils which they have committed, for all their abominations.” Ezekiel 6:9

So whether god repents or is grieved is not problematic to even the least that matters. We should only have to look at it in the scope of biblical thought.

So if god stops what he purposed, does it not suggest a change of mind?

Obviously, it does as he did in terms of abrogation. An example is the change of covenants:

Luke 16:16

The law and the prophets were until john…

Hebrews 8:13
[13]In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Therefore, its not a problem how god could have second thoughts. The problem is how many attributes to god the term repent in such a way to have it defined in human terms, notwithstanding, they left out the biblical scope.


We can read in certain biblical verses that god was a deceiver. This as platform of ridicule is utilized by some in their advancement of opposition against the biblical god. They create scenario of degrading color to make it as discredit to his majesty but how could it have trace of reality in it when god is eternally just?

Job 8:3
[3]Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty pervert justice?

Psalms 89:14
[14]Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.

Indeed, god is a god of justice and everything that ensue from him is not froward except in certain exemptions:

Psalms 18:26
[26]With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself froward.

Yet when it comes to matters of truthfulness, god can never lie or can he initiate any trace of falsehood or deceit.

Deuteronomy 32:4
[4]He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

His ways are perfect.

2 Samuel 22:31
[31]As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.

So to say that god was a deceiver is quite unacceptable to even think the possibility of evil in him, which would have not differentiated him from satan.

Revelation 12:9
[9]And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Fact is, god is never evil.

Psalms 92:15
[15]To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no evil in him.

But then, it is unavoidable to deny that indeed there are verses which have shown god as a deceiver. Certain of these are shown below:

Ezekiel 14:9
[9]And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

Jeremiah 4:10
[10]Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reacheth unto the soul.

In what manner, has god deceived? It was through a lying spirit that presented himself for the mission to deceive, which through god’s supremacy has given consent, as it say:

1 Kings 22:20-23
[20]And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
[21]And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
[22]And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
[23]Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Clearly, it was not god who made acts of deception, bec it was the lying spirit in behalf of god. How could god personally make deception when its impossible for him to lie?

Hebrews 6:18
[18]That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Therefore when it say:

I the LORD have deceived that prophet,

It was not god who made the acts of deception, but only as insinuation to the fact that the credit of the act of deception was imputed on god but in reality, god never was the deceiver. God never personally deceive as it is impossible for him to lie. It was the lying spirit that made the deception in behalf of god.

Even god consented for Satan to torment Job:

Job 1:6-12
[6]Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
[7]And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
[8]And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
[9]Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
[10]Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
[11]But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
[12]And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

Job 2:4-7
[4]And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.
[5]But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.
[6]And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.
[7]So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

Clearly, god can never deceive… He only consented for a lying spirit to do it. But in like manner how he consented for evil to exist, to perform, to kill like how satan tormented job. So was it evil for god to have consented for generally, all evil?

Nope. Whatever does god is righteousness therefore to have consented for evil to perform even acts of deception is righteousness. So is consenting for evil righteous?

Yes as implied. Consenting for a father to rape his child or a genocide by a ruler or a lying spirit in the mouth of prophets are all righteous as it say:

Matthew 10:29
[29]Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

Simply put, everything that happens is by god’s consent as even the smallest matters: the fall of a sparrow, is by god’s consent therefore consenting for a lying spirit to be in the mouth of prophets, is not evil but in like manner how he consented generally for every evil. Nor it was god who do the lying, bec as i reiterated, its impossible for god to lie.

So was god a deceiver?

Absolutely not. Personally, he cannot lie but the credit of lying was upon him, in like manner, how every evil are.


Matthew 24:36
[36]But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Some say, final hour, though obviously its not but then lets adopt it for awhile for convenience sake. Yes, its a fact that Jesus was incognizant of the final hour. The thing is, many appropriated that fact as something derogatory of his divine status, to say, imperfect knowledge is a sign of non-deity, but by whose standard authority defines divine deity in its general aspect, to be omniscient?

Yes. God is omniscient for some religious views, but to what definitive aspect delineates divine deity in its general aspect–all true gods–to be omniscient?

In short, what makes imperfect knowledge as a proof of non-deity?

Nothing. Therefore, nothing of any argumentative piece qualifies anything to be subvertive of the fact that jesus is god may it be, an imperfect knowledge or anything for that matter.

Some christian defenders though in difficulty to support their claim bespeaks of jesus’ imperfect knowledge of the final hour as a form of pretense. Yet is that true? Did Jesus pretend not to know the final hour?

Truthfully, jesus used pretense one time in his earthly dealing:

Luke 8:45-46
[45]And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?
[46]And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.

Of course, Jesus knew who touched him bec he knew generally, man’s innermost being, that as speaking of all man, as it say:

John 2:24-25
[24]But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
[25]And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

As we can see, being able to discern every man’s innermost being, including his thoughts etc… then anyone in contact with him construe the fact that he was well aware of it, thus asking, “who touch me”, is quite a pretense, that as logical and contextual.

Even god almighty himself employed temporary pretense as it say:

Genesis 3:9-12
[9]And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
[10]And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
[11]And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
[12]And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

That is clearly identified as pretense as though god didnt know where adam was and what transgression he did, when in reality, he knew beforehand.

Hebrews 4:13
[13]Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

These examples would show that the divine deities used pretense one way or another in their earthly dealings but then how bad it was or how imperative of it to be considered as lying?

Could it be considered lying?

Nope. I believe it is a figure of speech called erotesis or interrogation, a rhetorical question that presupposes an answer that is either strong affirmative or strong negative. I believe its in the context of this:

A toddler knowing that its time to take his medicine, sensing it coming, he hides but his mother spotted him already and pretended as if she isnt aware of his hiding place, she then coaxed him: “where are you baby, come out and take your medicine whereever you are”.

Its pretense but its not lying. Its interrogative with an underlying purpose, of soliciting a voluntary and resolute interaction. It cannot be lying as god himself has no capacity to lie.

Hebrews 6:18
[18]That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Did Jesus pretend not to know the final hour? Was it indeed? Jesus supposed to know the final hour but he pretended not to know? Could that be possible?

But saying, that jesus was incognizant of the final hour cannot be a form of pretense bec by how it is, declarative, it clearly is lying to say its pretense and it would violates the concept of jesus as having not any sin.

1 Peter 2:22
[22]Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

To say that it was pretense, clarifies it further as lying due to it being a declarative statement:

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Whereas when Jesus made a pretense it was interrogative:

And Jesus said, Who touched me?

Thus in essence, to say that his lack of knowledge was pretense makes it a lie. Having a declarative statement as not knowing the final hour was straightforward. Indeed, he was not pretending to be incognizant of the final hour so as not to merit a lie bec he was sinless. Therefore, there is one conclusion for this. Jesus was incognizant of the final hour. Though he is god, he had imperfect knowledge. Does that makes him not a true divine god? By which ethical standard?

Nothing. That would only be as sort of validation that nothing disqualifies him as god. The question is, why had jesus imperfect knowledge?

Firstly bec, he has a beginning.

John 1:1-2
[1]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2]The same was in the beginning with God.

Secondly, as logical as it is to be taken is the reality that Jesus’ knowledge and wisdom was sort of progressive as he has a beginning. It developed through time.

Matthew 11:27
[27]All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Luke 2:52
[52]And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Therefore, its quite expected for him to have imperfect knowledge to at one time had been incognizant of the final hour even things such as fruit season of fig trees, to say it more emphatically.

He had imperfect knowledge. Still, he was god.


First of all, how notably subjugating is the thought that a group of scientists has scientific dissent with regards to evolution. The defiant consensus on it is rather effervescent on the furtherance of creationism. With such dissent embarked on questioning the already established facts, it rather bedazzled, bemuddled evolution as by the notion of re-analysis due to the fact that there developed skepticism on the subject matter.

On matters of critical analogy, i came about with a hypothesis. How on earth did genetics determine a common ancestor between apes and humans when ancestral dna percentage on a person diminished through time?

How much dna percentage does a son inherits from his father?

Accdg to Bill Spencer, a geneticist and genomicist:

There are many ways to answer “how much DNA”.

  • How many chromosomes?
  • How many base pairs?
  • How much mass? (different base pairs don’t weigh the same)
  • How many genes?

Let’s look* at the base pairs (bp) in autosomal, X, Y, and mitochondrial DNA.

  • 2,875,001,522 bp Autosomal DNA from each parent (chromosomes 1–22)
  • 156,040,895 bp X chromosome (from mother to son)
  • 57,227,415 bp Y chromosome (from father to son) (1/3 the size of X)
  • 16,569 bp Mitochondrial DNA (from mother to son) (very tiny)

This gives us:

49.1713% = 2,932,228,937 bp from Father to Son (22+Y)

50.8287% = 3,031,058,986 bp from Mother to Son (22+X+mtDNA)

Note: Total nuclear DNA is:

  • 6,062,084,834 female (2*22 + XX)
  • 5,963,271,354 male (2*22+XY)

which makes female DNA 1.657% longer than male DNA, due to X bigger than Y.

Note: Though he has fewer base pairs, the male has more genes than the female! One of the female’s X chromosomes in each cell is “turned off”, becoming a Barr Body. That way, each human has exactly one single X chromosome making its proteins and ncRNAs. But the male also has a Y chromosome, adding an estimated 50–60 protein-coding genes** that females do not have. Additionally, some genes on the Y chromosome control genes on other chromosomes, so Y has a larger impact than just the genes physically on Y.

All these numbers are for the consensus human – that is, a typical average one, not counting people with less common combinations of X and Y chromosomes, or genetic translocation, or greatly longer or shorter repeated DNA than average, etc.
* These numbers are the Primary Assembly lengths from the Assembly Statistics for GRCh38.p2. A year and a half old, but close enough.
** US National Library of Medicine:

For example, through genetics it could be established that two individuals are related through the percentage of dna traces from a parental dna on a son such that it can determine paternal descent or a father and son relationship. A father and son relationship could be traced through dna traces of a parent on his son say 49.1713%. Science tells us that a particular people have 2% neanderthal dna on them. If the closest relationship is father and son, having a parent dna on his son at 49.1713%, a neanderthal ancestor has its dna on modern humans to be at 2% then clearly, there is diminished dna percentage of ancestral genes on a person. Neanderthal lives 40,000 years ago. So if it takes 40,000 years for a 49.1713% dna traces to be diminished to 2%, dont you think such dna traces couldnt vanish after it takes on a longer duration, say, 100, 000 years?

If ancestral dna traces vanished, how could genetics trace a common ancestor between apes and humans?


In the sense of moral ethics, biblical slavery is moral as it is a mandate from an ethical standard: the bible. The problem is, how convenient it is not to be categorized as injustice?

Biblical slavery has in it mandate to own, beat and buy slaves, but in what avenue of jurisprudence has qualify, quantify or categorically, in such manner present it as just and not prejudicial to the aspect of human rights?

Lets justify the jewish custom.

First, slaves are heathens.

Leviticus 25:13,44-46
[44]Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
[45]Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
[46]And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Secondly, becoming a slave is by consent. You have the right to accept or decline, whichever you think suits you best, as you consented for must be the delineating factor as to which must be followed. Therefore, its you who must choose between becoming slave or not so as not to wrest with your judgment as it say:

Deuteronomy 16:19
[19]Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.

Thirdly, there is no oppressive hard labor as it say:

Leviticus 25:17
[17]Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt fear thy God: for I am the LORD your God.

Fourthly, owning a slave is by contract yet nothing about how you are owned or in what manner you are owned is clearly specified regarding the matter but only to serve.

Exodus 21:4-6
[4]If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.
[5]And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
[6]Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Nevertheless, as i earlier specified, being a slave is by consent and there is no oppressive hard labor. The thing is, there is always consideration which regards to well-fare so as not to oppress a slave. When he get sick for example, there is consideration so to avoid oppression as it say:

Ye shall not therefore oppress one another

With regards to family matters, its sort of having negative implication, having to be a slave forever just so to be with your family as specified yet that as a mandate cannot be revoked. It is a divine sanction and by what reason it was imposed is quite vague, in this matter. Why cannot a slave after being free be with his family is quite unequivocal–the master owned his family–yet by what reason god imposed this law is quite vague for me.

Fifth, beating a slave is only in matters of chastisement.

Exodus 21:20-21
[20]And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
[21]Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Beating a slave to chastise him is implied yet if you kill him, you shall be punished bec it would be oppression which i earlier specified is prohibitted, but even, if you did not kill him as long as you oppress him, youre still guilty of a crime.

Ye shall not therefore oppress one another

But if beating is oppressive per adventure he lives youll not be punished if so that it was not intentionally oppressive such as by someone having mental problems as it say:

Numbers 15:27-28
[27]And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering.
[28]And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.

A mentally disturbed man such as an insane person is ignorant about what is right or wrong therefore any wrong action thereby such as cruelty to slaves, cannot make him liable for any crime bec his actions were inadvertently out of mind. Any ignorant or inadvertently out-of-mind actions are not punishable by law therefore having beaten a slave, killed or not, dont make him liable for it, and in this instance, it say for he is his money.

Sixth, buying a slave is not bad at all.

Exodus 21:2
[2]If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

As i said earlier, becoming a servant is by consent. Its not by force or coercion. It must be by freewill so as not to wrest a person’s judgment. A person has right to choose which is best for him, therefore, consent is necessary in the matter of jewish slavery as it say:

Thou shalt not wrest judgment

With these reality, how come you see jewish slavery as sort of cruel and inhumane when clearly, nothing to that regards has ever been real.

In fact, it is good–a way to earn a living as it say:

Leviticus 19:13
The wages of him that is a servant shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.

Normally, biblical slavery is a 6 year contract. Think of domestic helpers working abroad, they describe biblical slavery rather closely in matters how it really is.



None to that extent was implied in the bible. The verses provided below is indeed the time of the advent of the messiah but look at which timeframe it would happen. At the time when israel is at peace or as emphasized is dwelling safely. That time hasnt happened yet. But new testament has predicted a 1000 year peace in israel, this would be where jesus would come again with his saints to reign in israel. This means that jesus is the messiah in this instance. And the levite rulers, NOTE WHAT IT SAY, dont want a man to officiate the priestly obligation such as burnt offering thus debunked the idea of a third temple….

Jeremiah 33:15-18
[15]In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.
[16]In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.
[17]For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
[18]Neither shall the KOHEN (RULER OR PRIEST) the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.

Let us elaborate…

The branch of righteousness is also the lord our righteousness. It is Jesus Christ as it say:

Jeremiah 33:15

[15]In those days, and at that time, will I cause the TSEMACH (sprout, bud, branch) of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.

Jeremiah 33:16

[16]In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.

The tender plant or bud is the lord our righteousness?

Who is he?

1 Corinthians 1:30

[30]But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

According to Paul, Jesus was made as our righteousness. Firstly he is lord, as stated,

“God made Jesus both lord and Christ”

Secondly, Paul said, he is our righteousness, as it say, “he is made unto us righteousness”. Therefore jesus is the lord our righteousness. He is then the bud or tender plant or the branch of righteousness.

Much so as corroborated:

Acts 2:30
[30]Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his (David) loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

He would come again when israel is dwelling safely. Israel would be dwelling safely during the millenial reign of christ when israel would have returned to their land out of the many nations.

Ezekiel 38:8
[8]After many days thou shalt be visited: in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them.

This dwelling safely is during the millenial reign of christ as it say:

Revelation 20:6
[6]Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Christ reigning 1000 years implied that these are the days of peace as the days israel would be dwelling safely and on these days this event would happen as emphasized:

Neither shall the KOHEN (RULER OR PRIEST) the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.

Notice the caps lock kohen. This kohen would enforce that priestly obligation such as burnt offering and sacrifice is not approved thus debunking the possibility of the third temple. It was jewish custom that these priestly obligation as detailed in the torah were being done in the temple but having it unapproved by kohen then it implies that there would never be a rebuilt temple. Kohen being in this regards, are not levite priests of judaism bec during these times, it is already a christian dispensation. And being in that situation, the levite priesthood has been nullified.

Hebrews 7:12
[12]For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Therefore kohen are rulers, levite rulers or priests but not in the same category as that with judaism. They reign along with christ.

but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

They would disencourage the priestly obligation of sacrifice and offering and being in that situation, it debunked the idea of a third temple.

Hosea 6:6
[6]For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Accdg to wikipedia:

According to the Hebrew Bible, after the building of Solomon’s Temple, sacrifices were only to be carried out there.[16] After the Temple was destroyed, sacrifices were resumed when the Second Temple was built until it was also destroyed in 70 CE. After the destruction of the Second Temple sacrifices were prohibited because there was no longer a Temple, the only place allowed by halakha for sacrifices.


Not directly. We cannot read any direct attestation from Jesus. His words were incomplete during his earthly ministry so should we expect him to say these things? What we can read is an indirect claim of deity.

Here goes…

John 20:24-29
[24]But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
[25]The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
[26]And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
[27]Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
[28]And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
[29]Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

There are three possible reality on the statement that “bec thou hast seen me thou hast believed”. These are:

1. Bec thou hast seen me thou hast believed that i am alive.

2. Bec thou hast seen me thou hast believed that im both lord and god.

3. Bec thou hast seen me thou has believed that im alive and both your lord and god.

Verifying, was Thomas in a state of shock when he blurted, my lord my god?

Clearly, Jesus response is a confirmatory agent to what thomas reaction has to mean:

because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed

As pertinently, this response is a direct reaction to what thomas said, my lord my god, confirming that indeed thomas was in a state of belief rather than a state of shock, and being a pertinent response to thomas words, its quite clear now which of the three possibilities is the correct option for the chain of conversation.

I believe number 3 fits this chain of conversation as rather convincingly. Therefore, it was Jesus indirect attestation that he is god, bec if not, was jesus ignoring thomas words when he said my lord my god so to what basis did he responded with “bec thou hast seen me thou hast believed”?

It would be senseless if thomas words would be ignored as nothing as reference point would be the basis of jesus response. Therefore Thomas words must have been an expression of faith for Jesus to have responded in this way.

So when jesus responded, it should have meant this way:

because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed that im alive and your lord and god?

And being a pertinent response to thomas words, so when it say:

blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed

Its Jesus confirming the words of thomas that indeed he is god, bec it was confirmed as he implied, blessed are those who have not seen me yet believed as how thomas did: My lord my god!

So was Thomas in a state of shock?

How could it be when there was a precedent to this event. Prior, they already knew Jesus is god. They already preached John 1:1, 14 “the word was god. The word become flesh.”. So Thomas has already a preconceived idea that jesus is god so how could he be shocked?

And how could he be shocked when beforehand he was informed by the apostles that Jesus appeared to them to which he responded:

The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

So how could he be shocked when he was informed prior to the event? There was already preconception–an idea beforehand–regarding Jesus appearance so it wont come as a shock for Thomas if ever he would appear again. Though Thomas was unbelieving yet still, there was preconception. With preconception, there would be no shock.

Comparatively when saying: the president is in our baranggay. You would answer: i dont believe you. And when you see him, would you say: oh my god! The president is in our baranggay, i didnt thought so!?

Sounds unseemly, right? There was already preconception, so you wouldnt be shocked. So is with the Thomas state of shock was, isnt it?

Clearly, Thomas was not shocked.

The thing is others were putting doubt to it by saying: if thomas knew that he is god why did he flee during jesus arrest when he knew he was already with god almighty?

Sounds convincing, right? Yet they knew too that jesus is powerful he can calm storms or wither a tree, yet why did they still run away?

Of course, its human nature. Seeing that jesus is not doing anything and being in a helpless situation, having qualms about it, they run. Its normal.

But what is undeniable is, jesus admitted his being god though in indirect terms, yet its a remarkable progress to how he would be socially known, much so by his apostles and us, his true disciples.

Jesus is really a true god as confirmed by this event.


Insults against the bible has surged to exponential terms lately. It isnt wonderful to see how people are misinformed if not, on deliberate onslaught to destroy the bible. But god willing, we may have to fight it head on yet wittingly.

May i be a simple beacon, as vessel of mercy for the wandering lost sheep. To god be the glory.

Firstly, defamation of the bible come in torrents, misled and yet destructive. One of such is the impractical way of implanting misinterpretation such as saying, jewish custom allows rape victims as indispensable reason to marry her rapist through paying of dowry to the father as stated:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
[28]If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
[29]Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Its quite demeaning to have an out-of-context way of interpretation but sadly, its how they make the bible ridiculous such that it posed a concept that is rather inhumane. Are you thinking?

You have to marry your rapist is the most offensive reality a victim may have to face and its clearly inhumane, yet you say, that is how the mindset of god was working?

I disagree. Lets see context then make critical assessment.

Deuteronomy 27:19
[19]Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Look it up and sort the term fatherless. Its hebrew term is yathom meaning lonely, bereaved person, fatherless. The translator used fatherless but what if the right definition is lonely. Then it should have been:


Simply, it should mean that at any instance, the judgment or decision of strangers (meaning gentiles) or the lonely (in general terms, jews and gentiles) and the widow in whatever situation they maybe, rape victims or not, must have to be upheld so as not to pervert their judgment or decision. Therefore, any lonely hebrew girl raped, must have his judgment or decision be upheld if she by consent should conform to marrying her rapist or not. It must be by consent, but is it only referring to the lonely or should we interpret it in general condition?

Of course, its in general condition. Any hebrew girl raped, lonely or not, must have her consent be upheld regarding marrying her rapist. She has the right to decline if she so chooses as her judgment is respected. It say:

Deuteronomy 16:18-20
[18]Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment.
[19]Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.
[20]That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Lets emphasize:

Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons,

By this law, its clear that a person’s judgment is respected, thus a rape victim has the right to choose what is better for her. Should she marry her rapist or not, must be by personal consent, so as not to wrest her judgment.

With this, clearly, god has spoken–and thus you can see how justice is better served.

But the problem is, how about the rapist? What judgment is reserved for him, if so that she declines marriage?

I tried a little research and nothing is said regarding that matter on certain terms but to be punished in this way:

Leviticus 24:19-20
[19]And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
[20]Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

Rape is an offense that cause a breach, and blemish. In that instance, punishment for the rapist cannot be withheld. But in what manner, its not clear.

Another punishment is through divine intervention through a sword as it say:

Exodus 22:21-24
[21]Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
[22]Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.
[23]If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;
[24]And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.

Still, justice is highly valued. And rape victims were treated justly. But nothing is said, that rape victims must necessarily marry their rapist in as much that consent is greatly honored.