The End of the World Confusion About the Bible

By Bossant Ti Denis

After you are done reading The End of the World Confusion About the Bible You will have the knowledge to stand comfortably in front of whoever to speak. You will go from a listener to a speaker because you will know what others don’t. You will know the complete and correct meaning of the word “adultery”. You will know the deep hidden mystery beyond mankind achievement on earth. You will know what the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is, for it is finally revealed. You will know the only one entity or thing that God did not create. You will know why God does not know about and see things that happen.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Page Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Nov 15, 2020
• ISBN: 9780997108743

Book preview

CHAPTER 1

Adam and Eve as Children

The illustrations you are about to read in this chapter will help you understand how Adam and Eve, two God loving creatures, were just like children before sin in the same way that all children are in front of a parent.

According to the Holy Bible (King James Version @2007), In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth (Genesis 1:1). God created everything in six days. The first person that God created was named Adam. He looked just like God and the angels (Genesis 1:26-27). Adam, a male, was the unique living creature that God created in the beginning with no similarity. No one resembled him in the Garden of Eden. Every creature had a partner who looked similar, but him. Adam stayed by himself in the garden without a partner for a long time. God loved him very much. He used to come to visit him from time to time. God had created Adam to live forever, meaning he would not die. God noticed that Adam was sad because he was alone, so He decided to give Adam a companion. According to the Holy Bible, the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept put Adam to sleep: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. (Genesis 2:21-22)". After creating Eve, the woman, He woke up Adam. When Adam became conscious, he saw there was now another that looked just like him. He was very happy. Adam and Eve were very innocent, they didn’t know anything about good and bad. They were like children to God, the same way you were a child to your parents when you were born or just like your children were to you, if you are a parent.

When you were a child, there were many things that you didn’t know or understand. That’s why parents are always there to look after their children. A parent will do anything possible to keep a child safe. For example, parents typically don’t leave a small child alone by a pool or next to a fire, nor do they typically leave a gun out where a child is likely to find it.

Even if a parent warned their child not to go near a pool, fire, or gun that parent would not leave a child unattended around these three things under any circumstances. Parents know that even if the child was told not to do it, there is still a possibility that the child may do it. Denis considers the following three scenarios about a parent and a child to help you understand the scenario that took place in the Garden of Eden. In the first illustration, a parent is always going out and leaving a child at home. In the backyard, there is a pool.

Never go in the pool. The day you go in the pool, you will surely die, says the parent to the child. The parent didn’t give any detail on what is in the water nor why the child would die. However, the parent knows that if the chlorine enters the child’s system, the child would die. The child listened and never went into the pool. One day the parent decided to give something to the child because he felt the child might be bored at home; It was a loving act. When the parent gave the child the ball, the child was happy because he had a toy to play with. The child didn’t know about a ball before, therefore, it was a very nice surprise from the parent. Now the child’s new passion is to play with the ball. As usual, in the next morning, the parent got up and went out. Let remind you that the parent loves the child a lot. The parent never installed a fence around the pool to prevent the child, from having access to it. While the child is playing with his little ball, it falls from his hands and starts rolling on the ground towards the pool. While chasing after it he trips and falls into the pool. When the parent comes back home later that afternoon, the parent could not find the child. The parent called for the child and got no answer. The parent then goes to look in the backyard and finds the ball floating with the child dead in the pool.

Was that parent guilty or not guilty of this child’s death? _________

If you were the parent, would you feel guilty or not? __________

Should the parent have known that the child would have gone in the pool? _______

If you were the parent would you have known the child would have gone into the pool? _____

In the second illustration, the parent left the child in the house and warned him to never go outside. Should you ever go outside, you will die, he says to the child. Just as in the first example, the parent does not elaborate on why or how the child would die because he is too young to understand details as such. The Parent knows that if the child inhales the air from outside, the child will die. The child always stays inside the house and never goes outside because he was told to never go outside, although the parent always leaves the door wide open.

One day, the parent noticed that the child might be bored and lonely because he had no one to play with, so the parent decided to get him a puppy. The child has never seen a puppy before and was very excited. The child is very fond of having a pet in the house. The next day, the parent went out and left the door open as usual. While the child is playing with the puppy, the puppy runs outside. The child stands by the front door calling for the puppy to come back. The child does not go outside because he recalled what the parent said about never going outside. Although the puppy did not come back, the child did not go after it although the child doesn’t know how his parent will react when they realize that the puppy is gone.

There is an adult, an enemy of the parent, who is aware of the parent’s rule. Taking advantage of the situation, the person decides to influence the child to come outside. Once he gets inside he finds the child and says: Is it true your parent told you not to come outside. You would die if you did come outside? The child responds: Yes, my parent told me not to go outside. That is a lie your parent has told you. If you go outside you will not die, instead, you will find everything that you need to eat, and will no longer need your parent. That is why your parent said not to go outside.

Apparently, the person does not know whether the child would actually die but the person knows that if the child did go outside, sooner or later, the child would leave the parent’s house. In the minute that happens, he will be able to do whatever he wants to the child. For example, the child could be used to commit a crime and the parent will be blamed. The child could also be used to set up the parent. The person’s agenda is to use the child to frame the parent because they are enemies.

I caught the puppy for you. Come, let us go and get him, the person tells the child. I am not going because my parent told me to not go outside, the child responds. I am telling you that your parent has lied to you. You will not die, the person tells the child. When your parent comes back home, and asks who made you go outside, you will tell your parent it was me who came into the home and went outside with you to get the puppy because the door was open." Imagine the scenario between an adult and an innocent child. The stranger convinces the naïve child to the front door to see the puppy. He pressures the child and finally is able to get the child to come outside.

When the child goes outside, he takes the dog and runs, to get back inside the house. The child runs fast, while holding the leash as the puppy runs alongside. While running, the leash gets caught around the child’s ankle and the child falls. The child struggles to untangle the leash but cannot. The child is unable to get up, having inhaled the outside air that is too strong for such a weak system. When the parent returned home, the parent finds the innocent child laid out by the front door, dead, with the leash tangled up around the child’s ankle and the puppy next to him.

Was the parent guilty or not guilty in the death of the child? _______

If you were the parent, would you feel guilty in the death of the child or not? ______

Should the parent have known that the child would have gone outside? ________

If you were the parent, would you have known or thought that the child would have gone outside? ______

Denis recommend that you take a little time to really understand these illustrations or scenarios. If not, it will be hard to understand what you will read in the later chapters. These illustrations are used so that you, the reader, can understand the complexity of the next chapters. Here’s one more illustration to consider. We will use the same parent and child.

The parent places the child in the house. The parent puts in the house everything the child would need so that the child will never be hungry for food. The parent tells the child, You can eat any of the food in the house, except the cake. If you eat the cake, you will die. That was an order the parent gave the child.

As in the two previous illustrations, the parent does not give any details about why or how eating the cake will kill the child. The parent does not owe the child any details. Even if the parent would attempt to explain the danger, the child would not understand the details anyway. The parent knows that the cake contains a percentage of sugar that is too strong for the child’s body system. That is why the child would die if he ate the cake.

The child stays in the house alone for quite a while. The child listens to the parent and never touches the cake. The child is satisfied with the rule given by the parent and obeys. The child is in the house with no one to play with. This child does not know about any other child because he has never seen one. He is not in the position to think about another child’s existence. This child only knows of what he has seen and nothing else. One day, the parent realized that the child needs another who looks just like him in the house. The parent brings him a little girl for company. That was a nice gesture from the parent. This shows how much the parent loved the child. When the parent enters the house with the girl, he was very happy to finally have a companion in the house. That is the parent’s choice for the child. The girl has the same privileges as the boy, and she too is forbidden to eat of the cake, just like the boy.

There is an old man, who knows about the two kids. This old man used to be everywhere. He also knows about the rules of the parent’s house. This old man apparently, for some reasons, never came in the house while the first child was there by himself. Usually the parent leaves the door open whether present or not. The old man decides to enter the house not long after the parent brought in the second child. When he gets in he finds the two innocent children. Is it true your parent said you cannot eat anything in this house? asks the old man. No, he did not say that. Instead, our parent said that we can eat everything but the cake, the second child responds.

Is it also true that your parent said if you eat it you will die? he asks. Yes, our parent did say that, the second child replies. Your parent is a liar, the man says, You will not die. Your parent asked you not to eat it because he does not want you to have the power he possesses. Your parent does not want you to be like him to become independent with freedom where you will no longer need help. That is why your parent said that.

The old man does not have any idea that the two kids would die if they ever ate the cake. However, the old man does know that the cake contains a strong ingredient that could make the children lose all their common sense and natural behavior, where he would be able to manipulate them and make them do whatever he wants them to do including the killing of the parent. The old man knows he could even get the children to rebel against the parent and leave the home.

There are a lot of people who believe the parent might have been somewhere watching the conversation between the old man and the kids. For them, the parent is in the house observing the situation. The parent is just sitting down, watching, and listening. He does or says nothing to intervene, for they have already been told not to eat the cake and were advised of the consequences of eating it. The parent does not respond even though the old man told the children that the parent lied, calling him a liar. The old man cuts a piece of the cake and takes a bite. The parent says nothing and didn’t do anything to stop the old man. The first child, feeling uncomfortable, walks away and leaves the old man with the second child. The old man pressures her until he convinces her to eat the cake. He says, "In the event that your parent asks who made