About this site
My name is Wal. People are always asking me why I believe the Bible. This web site is my answer.
At present I work 24/7 so I have no time to respond to posts. So I apologise to those who would like to discuss, argue, support or otherwise communicate with me. No doubt many will find my work heretical. In fact I am sure of it. That is why it is important for readers to leave any bias, indoctrination or paradigms behind and to test this work with logic and reason and if you have a spiritual gift of understanding to apply it here. Let the Holy Spirit reveal the truth.
In my early years I was agnostic. I favoured the belief that God existed, but kept coming up with possible theories on who or what God was or whether God was the God of the Bible. It wasn’t until I was in my thirties that I found the evidence that satisfied me of the existence of God. Since then I have kind of whittled down my thinking to fairly refined views.
Let me start here. Why would a person trained in scientific thinking believe in God?
The answer is simple.
The evidence “for” is overwhelming although not that easy to discover for a novice, especially one unwilling to put in the effort to search for it.
The evidence “against” is zilch. There is none whatsoever. In that sense, a belief that God doesn't exist is in the same camp as a belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden. They share the same total lack of evidence.
It really is quite unscientific to base a theory on zilch while ignoring the real evidence.
Renowned theoretical physicist, the late Stephen Hawking concluded "there is no possibility of a creator" because the universe "doesn't have a cause". In other words he assumed there was only a single argument for the existence of God and that was the necessity of a creator. Where did he get that from? At best it could be anecdotal evidence but never objective or scientific evidence for or against a creator.
So what is this overwhelming evidence? Well, that is the purpose of this website. In the Articles section I will add relevant articles from time to time. I have a few up already, but I really have just started writing up the evidence.
OK before I start I should explain my history on the subject.
When I was about five years old I started Sunday School. It didn’t mean anything to me. When I was seven years old they gave me a King James Version Bible and told me to read it. I got stuck into it straight away, starting at the start. I read many chapters mostly about who begat who. To me it was seeming nonsense and soon I gave up.
At least that was the situation until much later I came to understand the begats had meaning in Hebrew and in those days I couldn't understand a word of Hebrew (except "Amen" of course). For example take Genesis Chapter 5.
The names in the first genealogy in the Bible are derived from old Hebrew roots which, according to Hebrew speaking rabbis, translate as follows:
Adam = Man
Seth = appointed
Enos = mortal
Cainan = sorrow.
Mahalaleel = The Blessed God
Jared = shall come down
Enoch = teaching
At this point the Bible says "Enoch (Teacher/Rabbi) walked with God: and he was not, for God took him”
Methuselah = His death shall bring
Lamech = the despairing
Noah = comfort.
Methuselah (His death shall bring) was the only one in the list to die in the flood. His death left room on the ark for the others to be saved. The veiled story is not only being stated. It is being acted out.
Sunday School didn’t finish until I was about twelve years old. On the very last day of Sunday School I finally realized what it was all about. I gleaned the answer from a little brochure I was given. However I don’t think any of my Sunday School teachers properly understood or they would surely have taught it at least once in my seven years of Sunday School. For the record, the message it taught went like this. All people have committed at least one sin. God wants to bring all people into his spotlessly perfect kingdom. His kingdom would not be spotlessly perfect if people tarnished by sin were brought in. God incarnated to human form to live a spotless human life (despite serious testing) which he voluntarily offered as a sacrifice to provide an exchange of his perfection for our guilt. The gift is free to all who take it. You can only take it by giving allegiance to Jesus. The concept almost made sense to me but I could not see any evidence at that time. Many years passed without any advance in my understanding. I visited many churches including charismatic churches. Still there was nothing to learn.
Then I found myself doing a lot of train travel and I took to reading the Bible through. Great idea, but I chose the Living Bible which is a paraphrase version, and missed most of the critical things. I also read many apocryphal books, writings of early church fathers, Josephus, the Koran a fair bit of the Talmud as well as new age esoteric and occult literature and many books by Christian authors. I used all this base information to theorise on possible alternatives to the Biblical world view.
By the way, why did I try to pursue the subject of finding God? It was because I could see that if God didn’t exist as a super intelligent, perfectly just, eternal entity, then life could have no value and good and evil were purely relative contrivances. It would mean the illusion of value was simply an evolutionary strength assisting survival. It would be nonsense to say Hitler was evil or that there could be something wrong with extermination of the human race. The concept of love for a child for example would be as nonsensical as love for a rock. They are just elements and compounds. Without God, value is a delusion. When I put my atheist hat on, the universe is shockingly bleak and cold and life could not be more lonely and empty. Seriously, very few people have the intellect to understand this. They are so blinded by the illusion of value. The situation is reversed if God exists. Richard Dawkins claims to be an atheist but wrote a book called "The God Delusion". What for? Did he mistakenly think there could possibly be some value in making the effort? Looks like a classic case of being blinded by the illusion of value. I was not that naive. I needed to know.
Years later I went to a meeting where a visiting Christian healer had been invited. I witnessed a miraculous healing from close up. There was no chance of trickery. I was shocked by the event. It was clearly beyond anything understood by modern science, but for some reason It did not convince me it was from God, at least not for a long time.
Later again when I was about thirty years old I decided to read the King James Bible through because it is a literal translation. I couldn’t help noticing answers to many of my questions. I couldn’t help noticing other blatantly obvious things that were too easy to miss in paraphrase versions.
A big surprise for me was understanding what the Bible means by LORD God (Elohim YHVH). It does not exclusively mean God.
Who ordered the Israelites to carry out genocide on the Canaanites? Not God! It was a death angel - an angel of justice carrying out judgement but using the name "LORD God". The Bible tells us God permitted him to use that name. (Exodus 23:21). In other places the Bible refers to an angel as if he is God. For example the event of Moses at the burning bush where the angel was simultaneously addressed as “I am”, “Yahweh” and “Elohim”. Was it God transforming himself to angelic form? No. It was an angelic agent acting for God. How do we know? Because that is what the word "malak" means.
It soon became obvious to me that the most compelling evidence for the existence of God is the Bible and how it relates to the Israelite/Jewish people.
If you read my articles on this site, don’t be surprised if you find my views differ from the establishment. I do my own research and evaluation and you should too.
I will talk in more detail about interpretation of scripture later, but I will say here and no doubt repeat myself - there is one fundamental rule that is widely missed. I often hear it claimed that a Biblical author wrote nonsense here or there. For example they say it is ridiculous that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and on a foal. How could he have ridden two animals at once? Well, where does it say he rode both at the same time? It is not the author that wrote nonsense. It is the interpreter demonstrating naivety. It is almost certain that every sentence in its original form made perfect sense to the author and no doubt to the early readers. If your interpretation doesn’t make perfect sense, you can be sure your naivety has come to the fore. There is of course the possibility of some corruption of text over the millennia, but not enough to spoil the message.
One final thing – My rule on copyright. Anyone is free to copy my work on this site provided they acknowledge the source.
