No evidence is required to dispute claims devoid of any evidence.
You have already showed a reckless disregard for truth by making a fantastic claim, implicit in which is the presumption that you literally know-it-all, and now here you explicitly deny the same.
The burden of proof is on you to falsify my claim. Simply point out a clear, accurate, prophecy and you prove me wrong : )
As these unresovable contradictions are internal to your claim, I see nothing yet that meets a threshold of obligation to provide an evidentiary response.
'Unresolvable Contradictions'? That there are no accurate prophecies?
It is interesting watching you squirm, trying to avoid showing where the word of GOD is accurate and predictive : )
Exactly my point concerning your original implicit, presumptuous claim of universal knowledge. I'm not squirming, I merely hold you to your own standard. Thus, I am not required to dispute claims devoid of any evidence
The burden of proof is on you to falsify my claim.
See what Judge Land said to Orly Taitz about who has the burden of proof in an injuction, the Plaintiff or the Defendant. Same kinda deal here.
Cordially,