Why Believe the Bible?

Credibility of Common Sense Science

Hitler Rallies His Youthful Supporters

Nazi Soldier's Rally Song

Navy Hymn

The Glory of the Cross

Cleansing Fountain

Pilgrim's Hymn (Stephen Paulus)

He Who Shall Endure to the End (Mendelssohn)

Alleluia (Randall Thompson)

Salvation is Created (Pavel Tchesnokov)

Oasis (Maynard Ferguson)

Eiger Sanction (John Williams)

Breath of Stillness (Wayne Jones)

Common Sense Science Hotlinks

The following are reporter's questions to be asked (verbatim)
directed to the potential 2020 GOP Presidential-candidate and VP-Candidate . . .
requesting simple, non-elaborated-upon, non-diversionary yes-or-no answers:

1. As President and Vice-President, contrary to Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-born Barack Hussein Obama, would you advocate legalizing same-gender sodomy-unions licensing?

2. As President and Vice-President, would you criminalize committing abortion homicide, and illegalize calling such murder "reproductive women's health?"

3. As President and Vice-President, in stark contrast to Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-born Barack Hussein Obama, would you select or appoint an [inferior-gender] woman VP running mate, an [inferior-gender] woman High-Court judge, and/or an [inferior-gender] woman federal judge or cabinet member?

4. As President and Vice-President, would you promote positive public-school teaching of scientific Biblical origins of creation as historical fact, while discouraging propagandizing anti-Genesis heretical-mythology evolution theory?

5. As President and Vice-President, would you honor the public modesty of women consistently and seasonably dressed in hijab burkas in general public view?

6. As President and Vice-President, would you not threaten to cut entitlements against retired senior citizens, but instead lower the retirement age to age 60 for receiving Social Security benefit checks, plus discourage borrowing and loans of all types, including mortgages, student and car loans, etc.?

7. As President and Vice-President, would you support the geographical boundaries specified in Ezekiel chapter 47 as God-apportioned Israeli-owned territory, while calling for replacement of the antisemitic term: "palestinian" with: "anti-Zionist?"

Barack Obama Had Trouble Controlling His Own Obamanites

Let's now examine year-round HAIRSTYLES as to what by inference is acceptable to show in general public view in stark contrast to what is lasciviously indecent (i.e. pornographic) to flaunt in questionable innocence and ignorance or instead with blatant defiant belligerence, whether subtly and silently, or instead overtly. The first passage of Scripture considered concerning improper hairstyle is Numbers 5:18 in the Old Testament of The HOLY BIBLE:

Notice the selected words identified alphanumerically as H6544 and H7218. Key words used in the lexicon explanation are to loosen hair and shake the head.

Certain in-this-case-faulty bible translations (e.g. the KJV, NIV, etc.) instead convey the idea of merely "uncovering the head" in a sort of polite removal of a scarf, shawl, or cap on the head without messing up the hair. Not so! What is intended is what the Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Version instead describe as unbind the woman's hair and loosening the woman's hair.

Such unbinding and unloosening is not for sexually-erotic stimulation or sensual gratification, but rather as a condemnatory accusation of suspected adulterous infidelity on the part of the woman involved. It is, in essence, to shame and punish her by the local priest loosening her hair.

The next Scripture considered concerning improper hairstyle is Song of Solomon 7:5:

Observe the alphanumeric H1803. Key words used in the lexicon explanation mention dangling loose threads or hair.

Lamentably, both the KJV, the NIV, and other in-this-case-incorrect bible translation simply state the wrong word "hair" instead of the flowing locks loose long hair (i.e. mopheaded, with hair hanging below mouth-level) phenomenon.

This time, the loose long hair described IS indeed meant to be erotically captivating and sensuously enjoyed...but not intended to be exhibited indiscriminately as lewd and lurid, non-asked-for, street-gutter wastewater to and against everyone in "general" public view (that is, mixed-gender view, as not presently belonging in marriage to the mopheaded one) - but only to the mophead's own husband in the secluded privacy of their bedroom or whatever hidden enclosure sexual interaction with him alone in marriage typically takes place.

The final Scripture considered concerning improper hairstyle is First Corinthians 11:15-16:

The New Testament of the RSV and NASV are deplorably lacking accuracy in many vital verses, but which the scholar can compensate for by exploring and carefully examining the KJV and KJV-type Bibles (such as the KJ21, NKJV, etc.).

That is because certain RSV and NASV translators who concocted the misrepresentation involving those verses changed and/or omitted words (in striking contrast to the KJV-type Bibles), basing their errancy on such significantly-corrupt Greek texts as the Westcott-Hort, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, UBS, Aland-Metzger, and Nestle texts.

In contrast, the King James Version and KJV-type Bibles based their English wording on Received Text of such faithful men as Erasmus, Beza, Elzevir, Stephens, etc. which texts were finally synthesized into THE inerrant Greek Text of the New Testament by F.H.A. Scrivener in 1894 and now known as the Trinitarian Greek Text available from Baker Books of Grand Rapids MI, Sovereign Grace Publishing of Lafayette IN, and Hendrickson Publishing of Peabody MA.

Why this webpage author mentioned that is because the studious webpage reader will notice that some translation use the words "instead of" rather than "for" (a head-covering veil) in First Corinthians 11:15.....and use the words "no such" rather than "no other" (custom) in First Corinthians 11:16. Clearly, the RSV is in error by their use of the words "no other" (instead of "no such") in their mis-rendition of and against that verse.

It appears that author Paul was conveying the idea that it is not the custom of the churches of God for a woman to regard her glorious loose long hair as sufficient or adequate as a prayer-covering veil. That would especially be true in general-public (both-genders) view, as within a church congregation during worship services and/or church-picnic luncheons.

BARED Arms in GENERAL Public View?

Old West Dress

Words alone are fine and create a comprehensible framework for both universal verbal and written intellectual description and evaluation, but that mere abstract collection of English letters is lamentably directly associated with mopheaded indecent hairstyles you and I regrettably are barraged with when encountering certain living people roaming around, what it profusely imposed on us when watching cable or airwaved-broadcast television programming with commercials, along with other magazine and newspaper and internet photo examples of actual-person despicable immodesty so abhorrently widespread and presently prevalent.

Proper Public Hairstyle

Ah, warm weather.....rife and reeking with the senseless, silly, and stupid sights of a sexually-harassing human zoo of loose-long-haired mopheadedness, nude arms, naked legs, and soxlessly-sandal-footed parts of bare feet parading around outside of apartment, condo, and car-bound cages in their natural habitat! How noxiously lewd and despicable!


All Hail the Power of Jesus Name [internal]
And Can It Be [internal]?
What a Savior [internal]!
Wonderful Words of Life [internal]