Video Placeholder

Sunday, April 24, 2016

Dr. Peter Ruckman Gone To Be With Christ

The world has lost another righteous man as it grows more wicked. Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

“Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.” ~ Psalm 116:15 King James Bible.

Monday, March 28, 2016

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

My Giant Bible List ALMOST Wiped Out!

Recently, I checked my Big List of Bibles: and found a lot of versions were gone. The reason being, that (a free website that housed tons of free Bibles) just went offline (check it out to see what I mean). With this reduction in Bibles, I quickly searched for every one of their Bibles I had linked to my website. Thankfully, all but one Bible was restored by other various sources (that exception being The New Testament: A New Translation in Plain English - 1963 Charles K. Williams). To make up for it, I accidentally found another free Bible I did not previously have on my website (The Open English Bible 2014).

All of this is very important to me because with these Bibles come not only historical time pieces, but also miniature lexicons that provide supporting evidence for translational readings in the King James Bible that are changed in other pop versions.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

New Scientific Project #ForceTheLine

In 1897, Geodesist Ulysses G. Morrow conducted a groundbreaking experiment that decidedly changed the shape of the earth forever. This experiment is known as the rectilineator experiment. The concept of the experiment was to force a straight line via mechanical process. The rectilineator experiment took place at Naples Beach, Florida, and demonstrated that the earth is actually a concave sphere we live in rather than a convex ball we live on. For more information of this shocking experiment, please watch the below documentary about it:

I firmly believe that the rectilineator experiment must be redone in order to show a scientific evidence for the shape of the earth. Relying on indirect evidences (e.g. flatness of horizon, transit of Venus, shadows) will not give any indication of the correct shape of the earth. See why here:

The only possible method to scientifically determine the shape of the earth is by mechanically forcing a straight line over a few miles. Then, the curvature of the earth can be compared to and determined from that straight line.

As time goes by, more and more people within different earth shape communities are seeing the need to conduct this experiment. For example, Brian Mullin (a popular figure in the flat earth community) made a video calling for people to do a rectilineator type experiment. His video even sparked the flat earth hashtag, #ForceTheLine:

The bottom line is that we have no scientific clue as to what the shape of the earth might be. That’s where I come in. I want the rectilineator to be redone and retested. That way, convex earthers, flat earthers, and concave earthers can see with their own eyes the mechanical result of forcing a line.

If this fund reaches its goal, I will personally dedicate my time and effort to rebuilding the rectilineator exactly the same way as was done in 1897 (with the exceptions of working in metric instead of US due to its scientific simplicity, and of using a 100 meter long water tube instead of the ocean to measure the water line). I will personally buy and cut the wood, make a 4 meter level, and travel to Florida to examine the remains of the original rectilineator (I live in California). After that, I will seek out a beach in California to do it. This experiment will also be video recorded 24/7 throughout the entire project and available for public viewing online.

If you have the desire to determine with scientific certainty the shape of the earth, please donate and help this project succeed. Thank you.

“Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:10, King James Bible).

Donate at

Saturday, February 6, 2016

“I Admit, I've Sinned.” - The Sin of Debate

I’ve done it just about every time I opened up my (now gone) Facebook page. I’ve challenged others to do it with me, and even succeeded in a live display of this sin: public debating. I know, I know, some of you are thinking, “Well he’s gone off the deep end now! What’s so bad about public debating? Isn’t that what Ken Ham did with Bill Nye?” Well, I’m here to tell you plainly that it’s a sin. Just do a simple word study of “debate” in the King James Bible, “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,” (Romans 1:29).

Below is an excellent sermon by Pastor Bryan Denlinger outlining from the King James Bible that public debate is a sin. I hereby repent from it and will never do such again. I urge you to make the same decision...which means you might have to quit Facebook for a while. :-)

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Hillsong’s “Silent Night” Rendition Is Still Satanic

Recently, there has been a lot of buzz over Hillsong’s rendition of Silent Night (shown below):

As you would expect from watching the video, Christians were outraged over this Satanic fleshly corruption of a perfectly fine Christian song. Here are just some of the (outraged) statements made over this song:
“[Sarcastic:] Because after all, it’s just not a proper celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ without Roaring 20’s flappers, rock bands, hoochie coochie dancers, laser light shows and lots and lots of leg in a nightclub setting. Happy Birthday, Jesus, hope you like it.” ~ Geoffrey Grider
“Hillsong leads the way when it comes to “churches” featuring worldly, gigantic and expensive spectacles to attract a large audience. They are laughing all the way to the bank, too, as this global empire continues to gobble up followers around the world.” ~ Steven Kozar
“[Sarcastic:] They do Christian Christmas carrols better than the world. Look how relevant Hillsong is – not even the world has taken this song to this… level.” ~ Church Watch Central
“It was so disgusting, I couldn’t even listen to it...I mean it was so vile, so filthy...It was bad...I would say anybody going there [to Hillsong Church] is lost.” ~ Bryan Denlinger
After a few days, however, many articles started to actually defend Hillsong Church against all the above “stone casters”. One such article by the well known Michael Brown was just published on CharismaNews. Most people who read such articles are prone to accept the “explanation” without question. But I (as the proverbial stone caster) will examine this explanation from an objective and biblical basis. Michael’s comments are in italics below:
“Jesus taught that we should “not judge according to appearance, but practice righteous judgment” (John 7:24).”
Well, first off, I can see that Michael is not quoting from the King James Bible (KJB), “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” (John 7:24 KJB).
“Along with many others who saw the video on YouTube, I was absolutely appalled by Hillsong’s super-slick, cabaret rendition of Silent Night.”
Good! You should be appalled by it!
“Obviously, I didn’t have all the facts, but what possible explanation could there be? The whole cabaret arrangement was atrocious, inexcusable, irreverent, mocking ... The list goes on and on. Still, I did not want to speak or act without more information or a clear leading from the Lord, and while I was giving the whole matter prayerful consideration, a Twitter follower shared with me a comment made by one of the pastors at Hillsong in Australia. He explained that this despicable version of Silent Night was designed to be cringeworthy in every way—in other words, it was intended to elicit the kinds of responses that it drew—and it was written and produced to portray Herod’s alleged desire to worship the newborn King. This, then, was meant to be the world’s version of Silent Night, which was anything but holy.”
So that’s the “explanation” - this wicked song is supposed to be wicked and worldly and make people “cringe” at it. Why? Because it’s supposed to represent King Herod’s hypocritical worship of Jesus simply to impress others.

This explanation is completely false and absurd on many levels. First off, if you know anything of the Christmas story, you know that the only people King Herod wanted to impress were the wise men from the East, “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.” (Matthew 2:1-8 KJB).

As you can see, King Herod was interested in only impressing the wise men that he was a worshiper of Jesus. In contrast, Herod “demanded” with threats the priests and scribes to explain to him where Jesus was to be born. So, it only makes sense that King Herod in the Hillsong play should present this “hypocritical” song to the wise men, right? Except he doesn’t. Instead, Herod actually cues in the music before the wise men come on the scene. And apparently, the song is not designed to impress anyone in the storyline - it is only designed as a general cue for the next song in the play (which means the song has nothing to do with the storyline). See for yourself with the same Hillsong play with different performers in another location (start on minute 15:15):

Plus, there is another serious flaw to this “explanation” promoted by Michael: if this song is supposed to make you cringe, why did everybody in the audience applaud this song when it was over (watch both of the above videos again to see what I’m talking about)? If this song is supposed to make you cringe, Hillsong did a very poor job at it by having the audience give the exact opposite reaction. But what’s more important is not how the audience reacted, but how Hillsong reacted to the audience’s reaction (hint: with willing acceptance of the praise from the audience).

This is very important because we actually have a biblical account for a similar situation with another King Herod, “And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man. And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.” (Acts 12:21-23 KJB). Notice that the audience gave Herod undue praise, and when Herod reacted with acceptance of this praise, God killed Him. This is because when the author (Herod) accepts the praise of the audience (“the voice of a god”), it shows that the author agrees with the audience. That’s not just my opinion, that’s how God sees it.

Likewise, when Hillsong’s audience gave tremendous praise and applause to the song, and since Hillsong accepted it with smiles on the performers’ faces, it proves by God’s own standard that Hillsong was agreeing with their praise. Hillsong was agreeing with the audience that this was a wonderful song for Christians and not a “cringeworthy” song. What Hillsong should have done to prove that they intended this song to be hypocritical would be to have the performers sorrowfully tell the audience immediately that this song was not supposed to be good! Instead, Hillsong Church accepted and thus agreed with the audience’s praise that this Satanic fleshly rendition of Silent Night is a good song!

Even if the song was originally intended to be cringeworthy (which I seriously doubt), it became (through Hillsong’s acceptance of praise) intended to be a good Christian song. And since Hillsong was apparently okay with accepting praise for this evil performance, I’m okay with condemning it as an example of a wicked song intended to be Christian.
“The pastor also explained that later in the Christmas play, in adoration of Jesus, Silent Night was sung again, this time the right way, in stark contrast with Herod’s version.”
 Michael is referring to this song performed by the same Hillsong Church:

But even with this toned down version, Hillsong still managed to make it worldly by adding a rhythm and beat to make it more exciting to the lost. Not to mention there is no indication that this song is even supposed to be an opposite of “Herod’s” version of the song.
“But for those who completely threw them under the bus because of their cabaret version of Silent Night, this should be a cautionary lesson. It’s a lesson we should all learn well, since we will be judged in the same way that we judge others.”
By that, I know I’ll be judged by God scripturally and justly :-). How can Michael (or anyone else for that matter) claim that this evil rendition of Silent Night by Hillsong could be justified when the evidence is clearly against them? This is simply a poor excuse to dismiss the evils of Hillsong Church at any cost. We as Christians need to continue to protest this evil fleshly song and Hillsong Church for their (not Herod’s) hypocrisy.

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Testing Roman Catholicism - Intro Objections Answered

Here are some objections I have received for even thinking of holding the Roman Catholic Church to the fire of inspired first century church documents (the New Testament):

1. You can't interpret the New Testament without the Holy Mother Church!
Answer: What do you mean I can't interpret a first century document without "Holy Mother Church"? Why is it that I (and plenty of other people) can interpret other works of antiquity just fine without the Roman Catholic Church? Why does the Roman Church's interpretation reign supreme here?

The common response I get when asking these questions is: because the Roman Church is God's true church! But then I ask, "how do I know they are God's true church?" Catholic answer: because they go back to the first century! As you can see (click on to make bigger) in the diagram below, this is circular reasoning and can be dismissed as illogical.

2. You're a biased Protestant who will give credence to Protestantism and Lutheranism instead of Roman Catholicism!
Answer: No, I am not a protestant, in the strictest sense. Protestants are those who originally protested against the Catholic church in the 1500s. Modern day Protestants are commonly known as Reformed and hold to the beliefs of the original Protestants and Reformers. This would be true of any church that completely holds to any of the detailed reformed confessions and the Bible as a dualistic authority - scripture + church tradition (note: reformed guys claim sola scriptura but still treat their confession as if it were a sort of sub-scripture: not the inspired word of God but what we should believe nonetheless because it goes back in history, aka tradition). The reason I do not identify myself as a protestant or "reformed" is because I do not hold completely to any of the detailed reformed confessions. I only believe the King James Bible as God's book. I'm a Bible Believer. That doesn't mean I think Protestants are of Satan, but simply that we hold different non-essential beliefs stemming from different origins. They are my brothers in Christ. I'm grateful for the work of the Protestants to free the people from the control of the Catholic church (without which I wouldn't have the right to do this study), but that doesn't mean I follow the original reformers as a source of my doctrine. The Protestant derives his doctrinal beliefs from scripture plus the reformed tradition and I derive it straight from the Bible. So no, I'm not a biased Protestant who will give credence to strict protestantism. I'm a Bible Believer who will give credence to whatever the Bible (in this case, the New Testament) says. In that case, it will be extremely unbiased. You Catholics then have nothing to worry about! If the New Testament clearly teaches and affirms Roman Catholicism like you say it does, then I should accept it as well as an unbiased Bible Believer!

3. Forget the New Testament! Catholics existed in the first century! It's true!
Answer: all of the alleged quotes of early church fathers in support of Catholicism come after the first century. Why do you want me to avoid the New Testament? Are you afraid it might actually expose you as being of Satan?

Now that the objections are laid aside, let's dig in to the New Testament!

Monday, August 24, 2015

Testing Roman Catholicism - Introduction

Roman Catholics have made the claim over and over that they are the church going back to Jesus. Is this true? It turns out there is a super easy way to answer this question with scripture. See, the New Testament was an inspired 1st century document of the early early church! Therefore, if the Catholic teachings match with the New Testament, then we can conclude the Catholics are right. However, if the New Testament blatantly contradicts the Catholic church's doctrine, then we must conclude that the Catholics are wrong and their church thus created after the first church of the 1st century. After all, what better historical evidence in the first century could we have than the New Testament? In the future I will post in this series much scripture that examines the Roman Catholic church to see if they are the same church as the 1st century church. The results may shock you!

Thursday, August 6, 2015

Post Debate Thoughts | #KJVO

Okay, I just finished my KJV debate with Braden Anderton. Some post debate thoughts:
* I believe Braden was a very proper (well mannered) debater. He didn't mock or scream like other people do (e.g. James White). He was a good opponent.
* I still am KJV-Only and believe Braden is very wrong.
* In fact, since I did not have time to answer every one of his objections, I will be preparing an article to do that very thing.

** But I was able to get across my message and my main point: the KJV is God's perfect word because 1. God promised His words would be with His people, and 2. because God has endorsed and blessed the KJV among His people as His book. No other book has had as much blessing (or even close to) as the King James Bible. Read the book that God is giving us as His preserved words and that has thousands of manuscripts behind it. Also, the modern versions are based on mainly only two corrupt manuscripts that don't agree fully in any two consecutive verses.
I am very thankful to God for this debate and to Braden for willing to debate me.
And in case you haven't...PLEASE WATCH IT!!! God Bless: