Tactical Social Media! Defend your faith

Record on this computer. We are now recording for for YouTube. Hello YouTube. Hello YouTube and It looks like we are preparing for the Facebook live. I'm getting a status update of preparing Dan craft using do you only in my head?

So I Still getting a notification that it's preparing so Joyce or Robin do you guys have any tips? I.

Think it just takes a little while. But I'm watching the Facebook page I.

Can PayPal you a tip.

Okay. Well, let's do this. Let's go ahead and start because we are recording for YouTube and we don't know how to edit it. So we want to be great and we are so happy to have Dan craft here. I'm Terry cameras out on behalf of the creation fellowship Santee and this is part of our virtually their 2020 series that we've been doing on Thursday evenings since we can't meet in our usual location.

So we've been blessed to have some great speakers and tonight we have Dan craft and craft is the seven-foot apologist. He's a teacher speaker and the author of a three-volume book called Jesus is not the answer to every Sunday school question.

Dan played basketball at Northwestern University where he earned his degree in electrical engineering With which he did precisely nothing. After graduating Dan was invited to rookie camp with the Chicago Bulls which sent him down the road of playing Professional basketball for the next three years both in the United States and in Europe.

His claim to fame is that he not only survived playing head-to-head against Shaquille O 'Neal But also blocked half a dozen of Shaq's dunk attempts which he wrote about The encounter on his personal website, which is the dot craft.

That's kre ft net.

Because the site hasn't been touched in like 20 years so it looks like it so never mind the dust.

Okay, then and then in 1999 God made it clear that he wanted Dan to stop playing ball. So Dan moved to Seattle to take a job with a small Well with a two-year-old online bookstore called Amazon. Where he spent the next 15 years 10 months and 11 days not that he was counting or anything.

All in all Dan has been bossing computers around for nearly a quarter of a century. But his real passion is equipping his brothers and sisters in Christ to give reasonable answers to reasonable questions about their faith.

And it's his hope that someday soon. He'll be able to do that full-time and We are pleased to have him with us here tonight and Facebook is still not quite wanting to cooperate so we can move on and Post our video from YouTube to Facebook later if that works for you.

That works for me, okay.

We get to see it live. So oh.

And let me just tell you guys. Um, so Dan's a presentation is very Interactive he'd like us to interact with him. So here's what we're gonna do if you Want to answer questions use the chat chat away and then I can shout out your answers if they're quick answers.

If you have a question, you can use the raise hand option. So, you know in your little square that has either your your video or your name there's three little right little dots in the right corner and if you click on it, then raise hand should be an option or.

Also, if you go to the participants tab, you can find your name and you can raise your hand there. So if you have a question go ahead and raise your hand and I'll just interrupt him whatever he's doing and and give him your Question, right?

Is that what we talked about? Yeah. Sure. Sounds good to me. And then when he asks questions, you can either post your your response in the comm in the chat or else we'll Call on you if you really have a longer answer.

So, okay, all right, let's go.

All right. So now here is where I get to demonstrate my computer prowess. All right. Where is it? Whoops. I need to go. Make sure the right slide is select first because I'm not liking what it's showing.

Me there. Back up. Okay, I.

Know that Mike is over there making comments about the fact that I'm using a Mac and he's.

Laughing.

All right, so here we go, so tonight's presentation is called tactical social media.

I.

Spent a lot of time probably way too much on social media and as I'm sure a lot of us do and One thing that's really kind of gets to me is how I see well-meaning Christians trying to defend their faith and kind of but frankly falling flat on their faces with it and it's.

You know that the teacher in me wants to take people aside and say look, you know, here's how you do this, right? Let me let me give you a few coaching tips but generally speaking you don't get a chance to do that online so I get a chance to kind of present this to you tonight and show you I want to walk you through a conversation that I had with a gentleman and Show you how I used Greg Cokels tactics what he teaches in his book tactics a game plan for discussing your Christian convictions and How I took that out of off the pages of his book and applied it to real-life situation.

I'm going to kind of guide you through that. So first of all, what I'd like to do is start off with a little a few presuppositions, I want to talk about.

Our.

Fundamental beliefs or the fundamental beliefs that I'm bringing to the table Which I'm not going to attempt to defend because it's beyond the scope of this presentation. But they will be the foundation upon which this entire presentation is built.

The first one is that Jesus Christ is Lord of everything Everything not just Lord of the earth not just Lord of the heavens. But Jesus Christ is supposed to be Lord of everything every aspect of our lives in particular our minds.

So typically when we talk about apologetics, we normally hear first Peter 3 15 quoted and it goes something like this. This is you know. People always say be always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is In you yet with gentleness and reverence, but oftentimes what gets skipped is the first few words of that verse says but sanctify Christ as Lord in Your heart set him aside as Lord in your heart of your thinking process, right in Christ.

You're hit all the all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, right? The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. So unless we start with Christ unless our whole thinking process starts with Christ and is founded on his word We're gonna be like a ship without an anchor.

We're gonna be just pushed along by the winds so the next one and Practice opposition I'm bringing to the table is Christ has spoken to us in his word the Bible. There is no other revealed Word of God.

There is no 67th book of the Bible. God does. God does reveal himself generally in nature. But that is not what we would call scripture. It's not on the same level as as the as the written word as the Bible is.

Number three, the Bible is infallible and inerrant. It does not fight. It does not fail. It does not it does not it has no mistakes in it and it does not err in what it says. Number four his word is. It's perspicuous.

Oh boy. Here it is. And we're already starting, you know first slide and already starting with the 25-cent words a guy I used to work with at Amazon told me that never I should never use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice.

His word is perspicuous. That means that when it when the God God is trying to communicate to us He doesn't have any problems communicating to us. His word by and large is very very clear. And if you if you're confused about something that's in one part of the Bible you go to another part of the Bible to get Clarification on that right the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible itself.

So it is self-authenticating as a self-attesting. It is our ultimate authority and Of course the best commentary on the Bible is indeed the Bible. So that's what I'm bringing to the table. These are these when I have an encounter with anybody whether it be online or in person.

These are the presuppositions that I bring to the table now I want to talk about the rules of engagement when you're talking when you're talking with somebody. Who doesn't? Who doesn't agree with you?

I've actually found these these rules these basic rules of engagement that come from Greg Coco's book tactics. I found them very useful even in the in the business setting when I'm having disagreements with other software engineers about making technical decisions.

I Use these some of these rules of engagement with them and I found that it's greatly helped me negotiate difficult otherwise Potentially sensitive or difficult conversations where people you know are apt to get their emotions up.

So the first the first rule is to avoid making statements. One of the coolest things that I learned from this book was that he who could he who asked the questions? Directs the converse that directs the the directs the conversation.

So if you want to get good at making sure the conversation doesn't get off into it off into the weeds. Get good at asking questions leave the person to where you want them to be now We don't want to do this in a manipulative fashion.

But we want to do this to make sure that the point gets made and we communicate effectively and you're not constantly put on The hot seat because when you start making statements, then you have to defend what you're saying.

So a.

Good rule of thumb is to avoid making statements ask questions so questions like what do you mean by that and How did you come to that conclusion? See when you ask somebody these questions you oftentimes force them to think in a way that they have never really thought about it before.

Right, so we all have opinions that we've formed in our minds. But nobody's ever really challenged us on them. And so when we come to when we come to a discussion and somebody you know We just kind of exchanging ideas and nobody ever challenges us on them.

Sometimes we come to you can just walk away from the conversation going. You know what? I I'm not even sure that I that I know what I believe. But so when you ask these questions, you can you can. You've want you wind up learning a lot about what you believe as well as what the other person believes as well.

So I'm gonna have to ask you to brace yourself because the Facebook fight is coming. This conversation does come from Facebook sometimes what I'll do when I'm having kind of a slow day is I'll head over to the answers in Genesis Facebook page because there Is no shortage of people who are on the answers in Genesis page who love to make comments about?

Whatever articles happen to be posted that day. So the one article last late last year I stumbled upon this article. Which is entitled doesn't science disprove the Bible? Says in today's world. We often hear statements like science disproves creation or science proves evolution.

Whenever we hear such claims, the first thing we should ask is what do you mean by science? So I went and I read the article and I said, you know fairly well-written article. It's like okay. I wonder what people are saying about it.

And so as I started going through the comments, I ran across this guy now. First things first. I want to point out that this was a public conversation that was had on a public page. So I've made no attempt to hide anybody's identities if you wanted to right now.

You could go to the answers in Genesis page. You could search for the title of the article and you could see this exact conversation. So I'm not violating anybody's confidence by producing the names and faces here.

So mr Grover says science certainly doesn't disprove the Bible. Although it does overthrow the young-earth creationist interpretation of scripture and. So I thought hmm, please tell me more.

So I.

Clicked on. I clicked on the you know show responses and I dove in there and one Rodney Bell comes up and he says sorry. To say but it doesn't overthrow young-earth creationism. In fact, there is a ton of evidence to support it.

And.

So.

I'm kind of looking at this going. Okay, where where is that evidence, right? There's. What's the mistake this guy's making remember though the ground rules that I laid down right don't make statements and ask questions.

So what does mr. Bell done here? This is where you talk to me. And you have to unmute yourself to do it. Okay. Well, you can see here. There are no question marks and what he's got in his post, right?

Asked any questions. Yes, and Rachel says he made a statement. Yeah, he made a statement, but did he actually say anything? It's just kind of a like yeah, there is so now we've got a yes there is no there is it?

No, uh, yeah, huh? Uh, there's it's it's all heat. No light. There's nothing going. There's nothing that's been added to the conversation here, but somebody apparently loves it because they gave it a heart, right?

So apparently somebody thinks it's a good response. Maybe I'm wrong. So I do have to give him credit for saying evidence supports young earth creationism or supports the Bible. I Circle this in green.

It's a good thing. He he didn't say the thing that what we often do is we say evidence. Proves the Bible or evidence proves young earth creation. So I'm I was very pleased to see that. Mr. Bell said support rather than prove but the rest of the post was just kind of like Not really there's really nothing there right there's no there there.

So then Peter Grover responds with Ronnie Bell. Have you really studied the biblical and scientific evidence against young earth creationist interpretation or do you mostly just read YEC material? So look at mr. Grover.

What's he doing? He's asking questions and he didn't make any statements. So I have to give Score one for Peter Grover, right? So he's got the right idea. He's asking questions. He's not making any statements.

So that's good. But then Rodney Bell replies with yes. I have studied the evidence on both sides and a lot of it is the same evidence interpreted differently. Also, lots of the so-called evidence against YEC has been debunked or refuted but never withdrawn.

Okay again, what's he doing? Making statements not asking questions. So who is in control of this conversation right now? Peter Grover. Peter's in control of the conversation because he's the one asking questions and Rodney Bell is just following his lead.

But what is it? They're focusing on what is the one thing that they seem their conversation is centered on right now? Evidence yeah, they're centered on evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence. They're talking about Evidence, so I'm looking at this and I'm going okay.

Well, you know kind of like Doc Holliday in the movie Tombstone. Mm-hmm. I said, I'm your huckleberry. So I dove in. I said, okay. Mr. Grover Would you be willing to offer an example for us to discuss you see up until now?

Mr. Grover has done nothing but just kind of making broad general sweeping statements, right? There's not a whole lot of information being exchanged here. It's just a matter of here's my opinion and here's my opinion.

We just got a volley of opinions and nothing is gained. So I want to know specifically what it is that he's using as evidence to support his position. So I'll play the game. So he replies with Dan craft the article talks about the fossils and strata being deposited by a global flood.

Now take a little close look at the stratification of the rocks for example. The KT boundary do such orderly strata each with their characteristic fossils really look like they were deposited by a single chaotic global flood.

Look carefully and honestly writing off the evidence as historical science just will not do. Hmm, so I read this post and I started thinking Okay, I don't want to be ignorant, but I have no idea what a KT boundary is.

I mean, I Frankly, you know personally, I mean if you like rocks, that's great. But for me rocks are about as exciting as a box of rocks. I can't get into geology. I don't know a whole lot about it. I'm not really interested in being an expert on it.

So I said, okay. Well, I better go get educated. I'm gonna go see what this KT boundaries all about. So I started reading the Wikipedia article on it. And then I started getting this this this really weird feeling inside that says like no.

It's probably not what you should be talking about. Don't worry about the KT boundary. He follows up. Please don't try to answer with reference to the specific gravity of different creatures. Different ecological zone the migration of animals trying to escape the flood or local catastrophic phenomena such explanations.

Don't come close to explaining the actual strata. So have you noticed something about Peter Grover here? This man can spell and this is a rarity Social media these days so I really appreciated the fact that mr. Grover took the time to spell his words correctly and He's either Canadian or British because he's instead of using Z's he uses s's but I won't hold that against him.

So it was nice to be able to communicate with somebody who who used proper English and could spell properly. But this whole thing it's it just started it was kind of grating on me. I'm like look at all this stuff.

He's talking about specific gravity of different creatures ecological zones migration of animals local catastrophic phenomena. Like I'm sure most people would kind of look at this conversation go. Okay, this guy is like way out.

I'm I can't even I can't even get on the court with this guy. Forget it. Yeah, okay, you you know tap out you win, right? You've got the clearly you're smarter than me, but you know what? We're supposed to always be ready to make a defense.

To to what does it say to everyone everyone who asks you? To give an account for the hope that is in you yet with gentleness and reverence and remember who wrote this. That's Peter. Remember what Peters occupation was.

Dude was a fisherman. He wasn't the Phi Beta Kappa. Right. So this guy is a fisherman and he's telling us to always be ready to have a defense. I don't think Peter was studying geology or Moon beams or anything else.

He knew Jesus. So that should be our attitude we should know the Bible so well that we don't have to we don't have to worry about All this stuff, but you know what even more importantly I'm looking at all this and he's talking about evidence evidence evidence evidence KT boundaries Specific gravities and all this stuff and I'm look at this going.

Well, what am I supposed to do with this? What are most people gonna do with this? They're just gonna shrug their shoulders and look at it and go. I Don't know. I don't know what to do with this. But you know what?

It's a red herring. It's a complete red herring. What he's doing is he's dragging a red smell a smoked smelly fish across my path trying to drag me away into the land of evidences and Get me away from talking about what's most important.

So don't take the bait. You don't have to be an expert in geology. You just got to know the word. So all this stuff about evidences. It's all the red herring. It's a distraction. You know why because evidence is not proof.

Evidence doesn't prove anything. Evidence isn't just in formation and it must be interpreted. Right. So the people in answers in Genesis say this all the time, right? They say, you know when you when you find, you know The secular geologist and a biblical geologist come to a rock and they look at it and one says oh well.

You know 6 ,000 years and the secularist looks at it and goes. Oh 4 .6 billion years, right? So rocks don't come with little tags on them that has like, you know A best buy before date kind of thing on it or an expiration date on it.

It doesn't they don't they don't come with that so we each bring our fundamental set of beliefs our presuppositions to the evidence and the evidence must be Interpreted. This is why we all have the same rocks.

We all have the same star beams. We all have the same, you know, we have the same rocks and rills all over the hills. We all have the same information, but it has to be interpreted and this is really it's a fundamental issue.

Is that of worldview? So Realizing this I went back to mr. Grover and I said I Wonder then what you do with Genesis 7 through 9. What do you see scripture describing in those chapters? Okay pop quiz time what am I doing?

I'm asking questions have I made any statements. I Have made no statements. So I have nothing to defend. Do I I'm just at I'm in fact-finding mode right now I just want to find out where this guy, you know, what's his story, you know, he appears to be somewhat You know biblically literate.

I'm just not sure. I don't want to make any assumptions about him. So I ask questions right now I'm in fact-finding mode. And where do I take him? I take him to the Bible, right? Let's get away from the evidences which all rely on previous presuppositions to interpret them.

And where do we go? We go straight to scripture take him to the word. That's where you need to focus he replies with I understand Genesis 9 through 11 originally I had typed it as 9 through 11 I had to go back through and edit it to be a vivid description of a worldwide flood terms like local and global or Anachronistic seeing things from our perspective.

I like the way Peter describes the creation and subsequent destruction of the earth. But only says the flood destroyed the world of that time. That's the way I see it. Okay, so I'm thinking about this.

I'm thinking okay. So having gone around this bush a number of times before with other people I recognize the influence of Hugh Ross right, he believes and what do they call it? They call it a a Global.

I always get mixed up with their terminology they use they use words in ways you wouldn't expect. So universal means it flooded everywhere where people were but it wasn't all over the planet or something like that.

So basically he believes in a localized flood essentially. Well, at least that's the impression that I'm getting from this.

Local flood and theistic evolution. Yes local flood. Thank you.

So then I said Peter Grover Thanks for your response Peter if you could explain what you mean by Worldwide and how you came to that definition as it applies to the Genesis flood that would be very helpful.

So again, what am I doing? I'm not assuming that I know what he means. I ask questions. What do you mean by that? And how do you come to that conclusion? Straight out of great of Greg's book. Okay. What do you mean by that?

What do you mean by worldwide? He says I define it as Meaning the whole world as understood by the author. How do you know this right. Well How do you come to that conclusion? Not dissimilar to the way Luke wrote of the whole world being taxed or Paul spoke of the gospel bearing fruit in the whole world.

So, um, thank you, I'm trying to be nice, you know, my mom taught me that you know to be nice. And so here I am doing my best. Thank you to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Is it your view that The Genesis flood see I'm trying to get him to come to the point He's being kind of dodgy with his answers.

So I'm trying to help him along a little bit. So I asked him look I try to Try to make it make a stab at the Interpretation of what he's saying and then I help him along with the question. Is it your view that the Genesis flood only covered the land of the planet that was occupied by mankind or something else.

I Think you may have missed the second question though, which was how did you come to that definition? In other words, what do you see in the text? That would lead you to your definition of worldwide and I hear you I want to pause here and point something out to you.

This is one of my frustrations with talking on with communicating online. If you if you like me and you like to write and you like to give very well thought-out, you know voluminous answers chances are.

Your answers aren't going to be read completely.

And.

If they are read completely They're not going to be processed and addressed in a point-by-point manner as I would like to have them done. I figure you know, if I'm gonna spend the time to write it I would like you to spend the time to read it.

All right, but a lot of people don't do that. So sometimes things get dropped so that's why I bring up this this very important second question I said, you know, how did you come to that definition? I want to find out Where he why he thinks the way he does right ultimately this is about this.

You know, I'm gonna let the cat out of the bag here. Ultimately. This is an authority issue. So where am I trying to take him? So here I am. I haven't made any statements other than thank you and Where am I trying to take him?

Back to the text back to the Bible. That's where I want to spend my time. Okay, so he says to be honest I have no idea about the actual extent of the flood. But I assume it must have swept away the corrupt civilization of that time.

As to how I arrive at that definition I suppose it comes from a whole array of reasons both biblical and scientific but I always make it my aim to ask what the original author understood by what he wrote.

A Complicating factor is the principle of accommodation whereby God reveals his word in terms understandable to the original readers. I think it is invariably a mistake to read modern scientific concepts into the text that would have been unknown to the original Author so I want to point this out.

I always make it my aim to ask what the original author understood by what he wrote. And then he brings up this principle of accommodation. So now I'm going to chatter my inner Jason Lyle. And I'm going to read you a brief section from his book Understanding Genesis.

This is a fantastically thick book, but it is really really good. It's it's a it's a lot of reading but it's it's in typical Jason Lyle style. It is very very well written. It's a very easy read and very very valuable resource.

Here's what he says. Accommodation is the act of simplifying a complex principle for the purpose of explaining that principle to someone else. This is a biblical principle. The accommodation hermeneutic however is something quite different the accommodation as Interpreter assumes that anything in Scripture that is contrary to modern secular opinions is merely an accommodation to the understanding of the time.

Advocates of this position assert that God used the accepted though false views of the day. Especially an ancient Near East cosmology to teach true principles such as monotheism. The view was proposed by 18th century rationalist Johan Semmler.

It seems to me that the accommodation hermeneutic can be summarized as God uses lies to teach the truth. So now you know what accommodation is. So if nothing else you've learned a big word tonight. Alright, so then I say I commend you for your pursuit and trying to figure out what the original author meant.

That's a good sign that you're on the right track to properly understanding Scripture. See what I'm doing here. I'm trying to be a nice guy. I'm trying. I'm trying to build a bridge with somebody I disagree with.

I know I'm pretty sure at this point. Where he's coming from and I know where he's going, but I don't want to lose the person, right? I think it's all too easy and especially in these online discussions that we have with people.

We we get so okay former professional athlete here, right? I'm extremely competitive. So my natural fleshly inclination is to win the debate at all costs. I want to win. I want to win. But the problem is if you win the argument you may you may lose the person and which is more important, right?

Arguments don't make their way into heaven people do. I don't want to lose the people. So this is something that I constantly battle with myself. And I constantly have to check myself and say, okay. Am I trying to win the argument or am I trying to win the person?

So here I'm making a very concerted effort to try to win the person. The tide kind of turns at the end of our conversation because you know, we kind of had to. Well, I don't want to give it away because yeah.

But anyway, I said but I must confess to being a bit confused. I'm blonde as well as an ex-athlete. So it happens more frequently than I'd care to admit. You said that your goal is to understand what the biblical author understood and meant by his writing and that your conclusions about the flood are Drawn at least in part for biblical reasons yet.

You also say that you have no idea about the actual extent of the flood. What is it about Genesis 7 through 9 that that you find unclear or that you think evidences accommodation. Okay, so notice what I've done here.

I've made a few statements, but what did I end with. I Ended with a question right because I don't want this to be like I need anything, right? I'm still kind of in fact-finding mode. So and where am I trying to take him?

Back to the text take him back to the Bible and see where they're going wrong. Okay. We want to take people back to the text always always always. So he says all the high mountains and every living thing suggest a somewhat limited perspective.

I Find that curious every and all limited.

Okay.

I suppose the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens would have to be understood in the context of ancient Near East cosmology. Accommodation again, right? This is like straight out of Jason Lyle's definition or his explanation of it.

I believe the flood was a real historical event. But it wasn't described with the strictly scientific accuracy and terminology that we might have liked.

Hmm.

Anybody find anything curious about this. Any comments?

Nobody has chatted anything yet. Okay. Oh Erica says. Opinions.

Yeah opinions, right. So like what is what is this based on? He's just kind of like yeah. You know, it's to me. It seems like and I feel this and I believe this and like, okay. But we're trying to get to the reasons why you believe right if I've been studying a lot about presuppositional apologetics lately.

Thank you. Thanks in part to Mike Riddle for kicking me kindly in the posterior and get me going down that road. But then you know one thing you learn about you know knowledge is true justified belief.

So you can if you believe something, but you don't have justification for it. You really don't know it. Right. So you just have a belief a feeling. Why do you have a lucky? Why do you have a sawed-off rodents foot in your pocket?

Well, because I know that if I take it out and I rub it then I'll have good luck. Well, how do you know that? Well, I just I feel it right. Well, so there's no knowledge there. Yeah, sure.

I'm still flying down the freeway. But that last comment that he made I'm not watching obviously. But I'm listening and it almost sounds like you've peaked his interest. I don't know. Maybe I'm reading or hearing that wrong.

Okay muting again.

Yeah, so it's he's staying there with me. He hasn't he hasn't shown any signs of frustration, you know, cuz I'm hoping it's because you know, I'm trying to be a nice guy. And in the interest of full disclosure, I've had other encounters with this guy since then just recently a couple weeks ago.

But the conversation didn't didn't end up it wasn't quite as succinct as this one. So I chose not to use it. All right. So I Said okay, you said all the high mountains and every living thing suggest a somewhat limited perspective.

But is that really true? When these phrases are considered in the context of the immediate words around them and in the context of the entire account. So notice what I'm doing. I Restated what he said and then I asked him a question.

It would've been very easy for me to say no. Oh the context said This and your bonehead, right? Don't want to do that because you might win the argument, but you will definitely lose the person. So what am I doing?

I'm asking him a question getting him to think about it and say is that really true? I found that's a Far better way to disagree with somebody than to say, uh-uh. Right. So my post continues. Oh. Context context right context is key.

So where am I taking him? Back to scripture right stick keep your nose in the book because God knows it all and he reveals it to us. All right, so it goes on all the high mountains appears in verse 19.

But you appear to have stopped reading in the middle of the verse. Here it is in its entirety. The water prevailed more and more upon the earth so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.

Note carefully that the text says everywhere under the heavens. It does not say all the world as in the known world. Which you mentioned from the Gospel of Luke also worth noting. Luke was written in a different language than Genesis and to a different culture.

So it's not a fair comparison in the first place. There are three definitions of heaven that the scripture uses the atmosphere outer space and God's throne room. And I accidentally I talked about this in two of my three books.

And the the zoom bar is blocking part of my my view here. So I'll have to read it from the paper. Regardless of the precise definition chosen each of these completely encompasses the earth. There's nowhere that we can go on the face of this planet where we will not be under the heavens.

So you notice here I'm starting to make statements, but where are my statements coming from? Are they my opinions? No, they're straight from the word. Let God make the statements. We should ask the questions.