[P-Marlowe]

One thing I like about Chuck Missler is that he's not afraid to delve into meanings of the scriptures that weren't considered 400 years ago. I don't think that our understanding of scripture was completed when the reformers passed from time to eternity. I would say that of all the mysteries of the scriptures, we have uncovered less than a fraction of a percent at this point.

However, whenever anyone dares to breach these subjects they seem always to be met with ridicule and shouts of heresy.

When you consider that all the endless geneologies in the Bible were inspired by God to be in the Bible, one has to wonder about the underlying significance of them. Why were they so important as to be included in scripture?

Did you ever hear Chuck Missler's discussion of the names of the geneologies of Noah and how the names point to the plan of salvation? Its fascinating.

[xzins]

That was the main thing that used to sadden me about the former discussions. The began predictably, and if anyone wanted to discuss anything not already written in someone's book of doctrine, then it was heresy.

It was so disheartening, I'm sure that's what drove winston churchill off. He wanted to discuss the ideas that led to open theology, but the typical response was "heretic."

Maybe he'll see this and read it and know he can come home now.