Pinned Tweet
In 1990 I experienced Yahweh. It was profound. So I know He exists. There are other reasons too why I believe in Jesus. So I know it all fits together. God's plan is amazing. He loves ppl very much.
xitter.cf/SearchingDeeper/status…
One day in 1990 I was walking home and I took a shortcut through our church grounds passing the church hall. I think it was a Sunday after Sunday school. As I was passing I heard an acquaintance - talking to some people asking them who was going to join them to pray to receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I think he mentioned that they would do it that coming Thursday.
When I heard the term Baptism in the Holy Spirit it struck me that I had never even heard of such a thing in my entire life. I had never heard such a term. I immediately became angry at my church because I wondered how it could be that you can go to Sunday school for 16 years of your life - do well in all the tests - and then there could still be something about Christianity that you didn't know. I had not heard that term mentioned even once - not ever.
I walked home thinking about this still feeling very upset.
When I got to my room I switched on an old radio I had of my grandfather who had passed away. I had been busy cleaning it. I caught the last bit of a program. It was a lady talking about what she called “The knowledge of God”. She linked it to a Jewish word “yada”.
Me still being very upset and angry at my church prayed and said “God please give me this yada thing this woman is talking about.” That was my total prayer. I was kneeling against my bed as that was my favourite position for reading stuff or thinking. I took the Bible and opened it randomly in the Old Testament - it opened by Moses and the Israelites.
As soon as I started reading I felt an amazing feeling of love. It was very strong. Love towards Moses and the Israelites I was busy reading about and in fact to all people. It was really amazing. And besides feeling intense love I could also understand God’s heart and His thinking and reasoning. It was amazing because all of a sudden I could see God’s intense desire to have a relationship with people. Also that He had wanted a personal relationship with the people of Israel - they never understood that part though and just stuck to the rules and ultimately a religion.
I saw that God eagerly wanted all people to be saved but that He had to stick to the rules He had created. He could not save a person unless they asked Him to. He could not override a person's free choice in this regard. His own rules didn't allow it. God really really didn't want anybody to be lost. He could however only save people by a special loophole He created and only if they asked Him to. If anybody even remotely asked Him to save them He would immediately do it.
I also saw that God really looked for excuses to have mercy on people and how if we prayed for somebody and asked God to have mercy on the person how that then enabled Him to ignore and set aside the accusations of the devil who was always trying to destroy people by first trying to get them to do evil things that will get them into trouble and then demanding from God to apply the rules on any wrong thing they may have done. If nobody interceded for somebody and the person him or herself did not ask for help or mercy a point could be reached where the constant demand for justice could no longer be ignored. To God this would then be a very regrettable situation.
I saw that God really loved people no matter who they were or how they appeared. This impacted me profoundly because it showed me I can accept all people and ignore their outward appearance. This really impressed me a lot because I could see God really loved and were concerned about people much more than they expected. I tried to convey that to people at the time but I found it impossible to get people to understand it. It also changed me in the sense that I stopped blaming people for their bad behaviour. I saw that there were many external and internal factors contributing to who a person became.
I also became aware of how the devil tries to destroy people by hurting them and by piling up stuff on a vulnerable person, through friends, through values of “society”, through unkind or seemingly harmless jokes, through judgementality at just the right time in order to try to drive people to collapse and even suicide if possible.
Most of all I saw that God was really really good. A really amazing person with an amazing heart. I didn't need to use formal prayers or anything like that to approach Him. I could just talk to Him like a normal person. Some of the things I realised about God’s heart was really intimate and I sometimes felt amazed that God would share such things, things that you would feel God would not want to reveal.
In that time I started to read my Bible a lot - for hours and hours. My parents were even worried.
In church where I always used to struggle to stay awake, now I was riveted. Wide awake. Absorbing every word the preacher said. This continued for years afterwards. I was also very aware of preachers that were full of the Holy Spirit. You could see God’s love on their faces.
I remember during that time, one night, walking home after church or a youth meeting saying to myself: “I don't believe the Bible is true. I know it is true.”
Towards the end of the experience after having read a lot of the Bible especially Revelations and the Gospels it became clear to me that many people would lose their faith towards the end or they would be deceived into weird stuff. I remember I started to worry a lot that it could happen to me and that after experiencing God, that was so amazing, that I could actually miss Him at the end of my life. I worried about this intensely and I prayed to God for hours and hours to please never let this happen. This was not part of the experience but it was my reaction to it because it was so real to me. I was young and there weren't a lot of people who I thought could have related so I just kept things to myself.
This feeling of love and God’s presence continued for quite a while. I didn't keep track but it may have gone on for 3 to 6 months. At the end the feeling started to slowly draw away. For a while I could get it back if I prayed for like 40 minutes or so. Later it went away completely and I have never been able to get it back again or anything similar to it. It is now 30 years after the fact.
The changes it created in my heart stretches even till now even though I have forgotten some of the details. This event certainly also helped me to keep my faith and to focus on trying to follow Jesus.
Lastly - one thing that is really interesting to me. When I asked God for knowledge of Him (yada actually seems to imply very intimate knowledge like a husband and wife although I didn't know that at the time) I didn't do it as a planned thing. I had no idea what I was even asking for and the concept itself was new to me. I was just upset. But then looking back at the end result of the whole experience, I received exactly, like in precisely, what I asked for even though I didn't understand what I asked for, extremely intimate knowledge. What God shared was so intimate it was in a way scary in terms of how anyone who shows you their heart is an awesome responsibility not to hurt the person.
It was a completely once off experience and the knowledge that I obtained did not come by studying the Bible or anything else. It came while reading the Bible but not only through reading the Bible and also not through the information I was reading. I read the same passages some years later without a similar effect.
Anyhow that is how I came to realize that God really exists and that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob the God of Israel and the Bible is the one who created everything.
ChatGPT-4 on what yada means:
In Biblical Hebrew, the word "yada" (יָדַע) is a verb that means "to know." It can be used in various contexts, such as knowing someone, having knowledge of something, or being intimately familiar with someone.
In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), "yada" is used to describe the relationship between Adam and Eve, as well as the relationship between God and humanity. For example, in Genesis 4:1, the verse reads: "Now the man knew (yada) his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain." In this context, "yada" refers to an intimate, personal knowledge that Adam had of Eve.
In other contexts, "yada" may refer to knowing or understanding someone or something on a deep level. It's important to consider the context in which the word is used to understand its specific meaning.
Searching Deeper retweeted
100s of templated ERP <> CRM integrations released to get your ai agents (Claude Code / Codex / OpenCode) started via CLI. Here’s a prompt example to get you syncing:
“Hey Claude, use the skills found here to integrate HubSpot and Netsuite github.com/commercient-datal…. I want to sync contacts, companies, invoices to deals, and closed won deals to become sales orders. Reconcile the invoices syncing in both directions so we don’t have dupes. If the customer doesn’t exist in Netsuite make it first. Sync my Netsuite products to HubSpot too.”
Searching Deeper retweeted
The suit-up alone would finish most people off.
Zhang Shupeng getting dressed on a narrow ledge at Tianmen Mountain before BASE jumping at 180 km/h.
No room for error at any point.
Interesting video. It looks like maybe Quantum Consciousness has some more support. I would be nervous if I was an atheist.
youtube.com/watch?v=uM5b6TBy…
Searching Deeper retweeted
Incredible.
This is the DNA Repair System. Look how many parts work together to make the system function.
Without DNA Repair, mutations in DNA would completely destroy its functionality very quickly - it would degrade rapidly into non-functional junk. Which means, the DNA Repair System would have to have been around since the very beginning of Life; DNA and the Repair Systems would have to arise together, at the same time, or DNA could not survive - and neither could Life.
But how complex is the DNA Repair System?
It requires 6-7 major systems, working in coordination together. Combined, those systems contain a total of about 130-200+ total unique proteins that make up the systems to do the job.
Two things make this system most likely designed:
1. DNA cannot survive without DNA Repair. The entire system must be in place at the very start of Life, or Life never starts. But creating the systems requires the information in DNA - they both must arise together, simultaneously.
2. The specified, irreducible complexity of the system. DNA Repair requires a minimal amount of specifically engineered protein systems to function. Just look at how many separate systems are involved in that process!
How can anyone see something like this and believe it arose by an accident of natural processes?
Life is so clearly intelligently Created.
Searching Deeper retweeted
I can't believe I just learned this a few weeks ago... This is *impossible* for anyone but Jesus.
The Bible is incredible, y'all. 🙏
Searching Deeper retweeted
Could Jabal al-Lawz be the real Mount Sinai? Check out these 9 compelling archaeological clues that point to this mountain as THE Mount Sinai described in the Book of Exodus!
Searching Deeper retweeted
If Jesus loves his enemies, why do you believe that he sentences them to eternity in hell?
If "love" justifies this, then it is not any kind of "love" understood by ordinary human beings.
The Eyewitness and the Interpreter: How "Useless" Details Prove the Gospels' History
The "Synoptic Problem"—the question of how Matthew, Mark, and Luke relate to one another—has puzzled historians for centuries. While modern scholarship often assumes Mark wrote first, a combination of ancient testimony and linguistic forensics points to a different, more compelling order.
By analyzing translation styles and specific "flashbulb memories," we can reconstruct a timeline where Matthew wrote the foundation, Luke expanded the research, and Mark created the vivid, abbreviated "Action Gospel" based on the preaching of Peter.
I. Matthew: The Architect of the "Logia"
The early church father Papias claimed that "Matthew compiled the Logia [Sayings] in the Hebrew dialect." Linguistic analysis supports this. The Gospel of Matthew contains specific blocks of text—like the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount—that show clear signs of being translated directly from Aramaic. They are "blocky," legalistic, and preserve Hebrew poetic structures that feel slightly foreign in Greek.
This suggests the Apostle Matthew (an eyewitness) wrote the original sayings document. Later, a Greek narrative skeleton was built around these sayings to create the Gospel we have today. Matthew is the foundational architect.
II. Luke: The Independent Translator
Luke, by his own admission, was a researcher. He likely used Matthew’s Greek Gospel as a base but supplemented it with unique sources. We know Luke was translating these extra sources himself because his style shifts.
In the Birth Narrative, his Greek mimics the Septuagint (Old Testament style).
In his unique sayings (like the "woes" on the plain), he translates Aramaic differently than Matthew does (e.g., the famous "Cleanse vs. Alms" mistranslation).Luke represents the scholarly expansion of the Gospel tradition.
III. Mark: The Greek Summarizer (No Translation Blocks)
Here is where the evidence shifts dramatically. Unlike Matthew and Luke, Mark contains no "translated sections" of teaching.
Mark does not have the "blocky" translated sermons found in Matthew. He does not have the "Septuagintal" poetry found in Luke. His Greek style, though sometimes rough, is consistent.
The Implication: This strongly suggests Mark did not work from the Aramaic Logia. He likely had the finished Greek texts of Matthew and Luke in front of him.
The Strategy: Mark appears to have written an "Abbreviated Gospel" for a Roman audience. To save on cost (papyrus was expensive) and copy time, he cut out the long, static "translated sections" (the sermons) to focus entirely on the narrative action. He resolved conflicts between Matthew and Luke by simply removing the disputed sections.
IV. The Authentication: Why Mark is Not Just a Summary
If Mark were only abbreviating Matthew and Luke to save money, his Gospel would be dry and purely functional. He would delete all unnecessary words.
But he doesn't. Paradoxically, while deleting major sermons, Mark adds "useless" details that serve no theological or plot purpose. These details serve as the "fingerprints" of his source. Mark wasn't just reading Matthew and Luke; he was listening to the Apostle Peter.
1. The "Green" Grass (Mark 6:39)
In the Feeding of the 5,000, Matthew and Luke simply mention "grass." Mark writes that they sat on the "green grass."
Why this matters: Grass in that region is brown for 10 months of the year. It is only green in spring (Passover). A summarizer trying to save space would never add the word "green." An eyewitness, remembering the scene vividly, would never forget the color of the field.
2. The Cushion in the Stern (Mark 4:38)
When Jesus calms the storm, Matthew and Luke say he was asleep. Mark writes: "He was in the stern, asleep on the cushion."
Why this matters: This is the memory of a fisherman (Peter). He remembers exactly where Jesus was (the stern) and what he was sleeping on (the helmsman's leather cushion). It is a tactile memory that authenticates the scene.
3. The Affectionate Aramaic
Because Mark wasn't translating a document, he didn't use formal titles. He used the "sound" of Peter's memory.
Boanerges: Only Mark records the nickname "Sons of Thunder" for James and John. This is a personal reminiscence of the inner circle.
"Rabbi": While the other Gospels switch to the theological title "Lord," Mark keeps the disciples calling Jesus "Rabbi"—preserving the historical reality of what they actually said before the Resurrection.
Conclusion
The evidence leads to a robust conclusion:
Matthew preserves the Words of Jesus (via the translated Logia).
Mark preserves the Voice of Peter.
Mark did not need to translate the Logia because he had Matthew and Luke’s Greek text to guide his plot. But he refused to simply copy them. He injected the narrative with the "green grass," the "cushion," and the "Boanerges" nicknames—proving that while his text may be an abbreviation, his source was a living eyewitness.
The Triple-Lock Guarantee: Why We Know the Gospels Haven't Changed
If you ask the average person why they doubt the Bible, they usually point to the "Telephone Game."
The argument goes like this: "The Gospels were written 2,000 years ago. They were copied by hand, then copies were made of the copies. Over centuries, surely mistakes crept in, scribes added their own ideas, and the original message was lost."
It sounds like a reasonable fear. If the Bible relied on a single chain of history, that might have happened.
But the New Testament contains a built-in security system that most people—and even many Christians—don't know exists. It acts as a "safety check" that locks the original text in place.
Here is how that system works.
1. The Power of Three Independent Witnesses
God did not give the church just one biography of Jesus; He gave us four. Three of them—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—are called the "Synoptic Gospels" (meaning "seen together") because they tell the same history, often using the exact same words.
For centuries, critics asked, "Why do we need three books that repeat the same stories? Isn't that redundant?"
From a historical perspective, that repetition is not redundancy; it is verification.
Imagine a police investigation into a bank robbery. If there is only one witness, and his story changes over time, the police have no way to know what really happened. But if there are three independent witnesses, and their statements match perfectly, the truth is established.
The Gospels function the same way.
Mark acts as the first witness.
Matthew incorporates about 90% of Mark’s testimony.
Luke incorporates about 50% of Mark’s testimony.
Because these three books overlap so heavily, they effectively police each other. You cannot change the story of the Resurrection in Mark without clashing with the accounts in Matthew and Luke. The overlap creates a "Triplicate Receipt" that prevents tampering.
2. Surviving the "Danger Zone" (30 AD – 200 AD)
The most critical time for any ancient book is the first 150 years. This is the "Danger Zone"—the time when the original authors are dead, but the text hasn't yet been collected into a single official volume. This is when a dishonest scribe could most easily change the text without getting caught.
During this vulnerable period, Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not sit together on a shelf. They traveled as independent strands of history.
The Mark Strand likely circulated in Rome and the West.
The Matthew Strand circulated among Jewish believers in Syria and the East.
The Luke Strand traveled among Gentile churches in Greece and beyond.
Think of these as three separate rivers flowing from the same mountain source. For over a century, a scribe copying Matthew in Syria likely did not have a copy of Mark from Rome on his desk. They were copied in different regions by different communities.
This is the ultimate proof of purity.
If someone had corrupted the text of Mark in Rome in the year 100 AD, it would no longer match the text of Matthew circulating in Syria.
But when we look at the documents today, they do match. The fact that these independent rivers tell the exact same story proves that the "source water"—the original text—remained pure during the most dangerous period of history.
3. The Refusal to "Fix" the Text (200 AD – 1500 AD)
Around the year 200 AD, the church began bundling these scrolls together into a single book (a "codex"). Now, Matthew, Mark, and Luke were sitting side-by-side.
This created a new temptation. Scribes noticed that Mark’s Greek writing style was rough and simple, while Luke’s was polished and educated. The natural human instinct would be to "harmonize" them—to fix Mark’s grammar to sound like Luke, or to blend the three stories into one perfect narrative.
But the scribes didn't do it.
Because they believed these were the inspired words of God, they treated the text with extreme reverence. They preserved Mark’s rough grammar. They preserved the distinct voices of Matthew and Luke. They refused to smooth out the differences.
We know this because we have thousands of manuscripts from this era. They show us that once the Gospels were bundled, they were copied with a frozen-in-time precision.
The "GPS" Effect: Why We Don't Need the Originals
Critics often say, "But we don't have the original papyrus scrolls that the disciples wrote! How can we be sure?"
Because of the "Three Strands," we don't need the originals.
Think of how a GPS works. If your phone connects to one satellite, it has a vague idea of where you are. But if it connects to three satellites, it uses "triangulation" to pinpoint your exact location.
We can do the same thing with the text of the Bible.
We have three independent Gospel strands.
We have thousands of copies from different locations.
When we triangulate them, they all point to the exact same original wording.
The mathematical probability that three independent groups of people, separated by thousands of miles, would all accidentally invent the exact same story of Jesus is zero.
The Verdict
The Bible you hold in your hands is not the result of a game of Telephone. It is the result of a triple-verified historical transmission.
By giving us three Gospels that overlap, God provided a built-in safety check. The agreement between Matthew, Mark, and Luke guarantees that the message written in the first century has arrived to us in the twenty-first century intact.
How Christian Fan Fiction of Alexander the Great made it into the Quran by mistake.
The source transcript details an extensive scholarly argument identifying the Quranic figure Dhu al-Qarnayn with the legendary Alexander the Great, emphasizing the narrative’s reliance on pre-Islamic folklore rather than historical fact. The central evidence points to striking similarities with the Syriac Alexander legend (Nishana), noting that almost every element, including the exact order of events, is closely shared between the two accounts. Specific details, such as Alexander being known as the "two-horned one" and the legendary barrier’s construction using both iron and brass, are cited as definitive proof that the Quran incorporated specific, late-stage features of the Syriac tradition. Furthermore, the analysis observes that this legendary borrowing uses details that contradict older biblical prophecies, suggesting the Quran preserves widespread Christian and Jewish folkloric embellishments.
