Episode Transcript
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to another episode of Cup of Nukes. As always, I'm your host, Mr. Whiskey, and this is a solo episode. It's one that comes to you with a bitter heart, a weeping, lamenting heart, unfortunately. Last night, I went and saw the new Daniel movie out. It's a biblical adaptation movie. It's based on the historical account of Daniel. I had very high hopes for it based on the trailer and some of the things I saw. I, and I only, I saw the trailer once long ago, just a glimpse of it, and I had my worries. Many of these adaptations are biblically inaccurate. They're overly dramatized. There's a lot of fictional filler plot that people assume because the full context isn't always given in the Bible, and this movie was a deep disappointment. It is very biblically inaccurate. It is full of just fictional elements. Do they take away from the biblical message? Not entirely. But were they unnecessary? Yes I am, I'm just, I'm truly sad. Why is it so difficult for us to have a biblically accurate movie or television series? You have the script already made. There's no need to fill in all these gaps. There's no need to add romantic elements that aren't there to insight our interest. We are not to conform to this world, we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds and to live different, and to meditate on the word day and night. First of all, this movie only went into the very beginning and one basic part of Daniel The most cinematic elements of Daniel were not captured, and I much would have rather had the four beasts vision and dream, the man at the river, the writing of the men- uh, what is it? Like, mene, mene, tekel, parsin on the wall with the hand. Or the lion's den, or the goat and the ram. Yet no, what we got was instead a, a, a fictional somewhat side love story of a fictional sister of Jeremiah the prophet with Daniel. None of this happened. None of this is real. This is all made up. So let's get into it, the movie itself The audio and visual quality was not well. There was times where the visual quality looked AI-generated or as if there was some kind of weird and strange filter on the imagery where instead of a real-life, live movie, suddenly it looked... I don't know. It looked like the people were CGI'd or AI'd, or it just looked strange, the environment at times. There was other parts where the audio quality was even worse, parts where the English that was being spoken was gibberish. It was inaudible. It was too quiet, or there was other elements going on, and you couldn't hear the English. There was many times where the audio was overly amplified, and it sounded unnatural. And, you know, those things, I guess those are just extra criticism because of my upset and anger over the biblical inaccuracy, but those did play a role in it. But let's get into the actual historical content or lack thereof. And, and spoiler alert, you know, for anyone who hasn't read the Bible or seen the movie, although if you read the Bib- if you haven't read the Bible, you're not gonna learn too much about it in, in this movie review because it was mainly fiction. And it deeply grieves me that we cannot have an accurate live adaptation of biblical scenes when we have the Bible word for word. And this idea that, well, we don't want the Bible quotes being spoken word for word because people already know that. We just need to reference it to be biblical but to still be cinematic and cool. No, I'm going there because I want biblical accuracy. I want to see verbatim, scene for scene, word for word. But we didn't have that. We rarely have that. Now, there was a live adapta- there's at least two Samson movies. Uh, the newer one I've seen. Also, there's some biblical inaccuracies and filler plot, but the scene of the temple collapse, very cinematic and beautiful. The destruction of the gate, the battle of 1,000 Philistines. I mean, it is cinematic, but there's a lot of stuff there too that is kind of twisted or wrong, and I don't get it. You don't need to try and make it like every other movie in the world. It should stand on its own because it's a, it's the Bible made into something visual. I saw a trailer for a movie coming out about Mary and the birth of, of Yeshua, and there was p- I already saw in the trailer alone things that were not biblically accurate. And this angers me. It grieves me. I am very upset This Daniel movie could have been amazing. I love the historical account of Daniel. I've done sermons on it. I went to a college class for it. I've read it multiple times. I read it last night before I, I went there First of all The movie presents Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah, and Daniel as students of Jeremiah the prophet, or essentially that they had a relationship, and nowhere in scripture is this established. The Bible never identifies Daniel, Hananiah, M- Mishael, or Azariah as students, disciples, or assistants of the prophet Jeremiah None of that. Does Daniel reference Jeremiah? Yes. That is different. Does Jeremiah send a letter to the exiles later on? Yes. But is it a personal relationship to, uh, to them? No. Not only is this relationship with Jeremiah fictional, but they add a sister to Jeremiah, whether they meant it biologically or, you know, just relationally, but they said it was his sister, if I'm not mistaken. They added this, like, love element between Daniel and Jeremiah's sister, which for me was so unnecessary. We didn't need this romantic tension like, is there something going on between them? Are they just a brother and sister in, in, in Yahweh? Like, it was so unnecessary Not only that, but he, he talks to her about how he's having dreams and visions before he ever went to Babylon. There's no historical account about that. Daniel doesn't get into dream interpretation and having visions until later on in the historical account. So they just made up these childhood elements that weren't real. And when I say childhood, I mean he's like 18, 17, 18, 19, whatever. Still, that was fictional and added in. That is not true. We have no scriptural support that Daniel has had visions his whole life or abilities his whole life. Was he talked about in scripture as a young, intelligent, and, and well man? Yes. Him and his friends were described that way. That doesn't mean that they had pro- prophetic visions or powers beforehand, or the ability to, to have interpretation, right? The whole point of D- Daniel in that one scene is that they are praying for God to reveal. The revealer of mysteries, the King of Kings, the God of all false gods, the one true God reveals it to them. Not that s- when they were younger they could see what was ... They could foresee what was coming. Daniel never says, "Hey, there's gonna be a fiery furnace that my, my friends get thrown into," but that's what he does in the movie to this awkward love story that they don't develop fully. They kind of placed it there for some romantic tension, and then I think she gets pregnant in, in the end. But, uh, we, we didn't know from ... I don't know. It was just thrown in there. Completely unnecessary. You didn't need to give a sister to Jeremiah. They also have Habakkuk working as Jeremiah's assistant, which is not true. Jeremiah had an assistant. We know that, uh, in accordance to scripture, right, we know that Jeremiah has Baruch, son of Neriah. In Jeremiah 36:4, Jeremiah summons Baruch, who writes down the words of the Lord that had been spoken to Jeremiah. In 36 verse 8, Baruch reads Jeremiah's prophetic messages publicly. In Jeremiah 45 verse 1, Baruch is explicitly identified as the person who wrote Jeremiah's words in a scroll. Instead, there is this idea that Habakkuk was working for him, unless I misheard the name, but I swear Jeremiah's fictional sister said Habakkuk when she saw him. Him and Jeremiah were making the scrolls, and they were distributing the letters, which wasn't true either because it says in scripture that Jeremiah wasn't writing all this stuff himself. He had a scribe. But that's neither here or there This movie felt like they wanted to try to cram a bunch of Bible references into it to seem cool and to incite interest. There's a scene where I, I couldn't even keep track of, of who was who. The scene changes were fast and stuff. But there, there's a, there's a scene where before you get their names even, I think, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, two of them are talking, and they're just kind of, for lack of better words, BS-ing. And they're talking about Elijah outran the chariots and horses, and Samson had great strength, and Moses did this, and Joshua ... They, they, they make all these Old Testament references that felt like they were just thrown in there for, for fun facts. A lo- like, just throwing in Elijah outran and ran the chariots and, you know, talking about stuff that was happening pretty, pretty recently or, or whatnot. I mean, it just was ridiculous in my opinion to think that these young men just joke around in, in Old Testament references like that. And it felt like they were just trying to cram in like, "Look at us. We put in Bible facts." Same with, like, trying to put Jeremiah in there, and trying to put Habakkuk in there, and trying to make this fictional relationship, trying to have this fictional relationship, uh, with Jeremiah's sister. And, you know, the idea that while in Babylon, Daniel was waiting for letters from Jeremiah through his sister. I mean, it was just all fictional plot In the beginning of the movie, they glorify Nebuchadnezzar. They literally basically make him seem like he's a Christian warrior, uh, or, or rather a Jewish warrior in the sense that he's like, "I'm here. Your God chose me. Your God is unhappy with you. I'm here on God's behalf." We know that the prophets were saying Babylon was gonna be an instrument. That doesn't mean Nebuchadnezzar came strolling in there saying, "I'm God's chosen. I'm, I'm more saved than you are." I mean, it was ridiculous the way they kind of glorified Nebuchadnezzar. Just because God uses someone as a instrument of judgment doesn't mean that God approves of that person or that we should glorify them. We should recognize Babylon as a chosen tool of God, but we should not recognize them as some glorified, you know, Jewish hero the way that he was presented in my opinion. Does the other parts of the movie present him as kind of insane? Sure, 100%. As egotistical? Sure, 100%. But still, I mean, it was just ridiculous this idea that Nebuchadnezzar had a lion tattoo. Really? Nebuchadnezzar in, in the Old Testament leading Babylon had a lion tattoo on his left deltoid, and it wasn't like a simple ancient tattoo. It was a modern-day black and gray ink lion tattoo, and there was this whole symbology that he was a lion and that the, the Babylon was a lion. And, you know, there is symbology. You look at ... And, and this is where I want to identify biblical truth from this fictional filler. Is Babylon associated with lions? Yes, through prophetic imagery. Look at Daniel 7:4. The first beast, which represents Babylon, so it looks like a lion with eagle's wings. And then we also know I did a sermon on my Radiating Faith podcast called The Fifth Beast. It talks about Nebuchadnezzar, right? In Jeremiah 4:7, we, we, there's a imagery of a lion coming out of a, of, of its thicket associated with the destroyer of nations, the threat coming from the north. Nebuchadnezzar subsequently named as God's instrument of judgment in Jeremiah 25:9. In Jeremiah 50 verse 17, Israel is described as scattered sheep chased by lions. The king of Assyria devoured him first. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon later broke his bones. There's as- there- Babylon is associated with lion imagery. Nebuchadnezzar did consider himself superior to others because there's biblical support for his arrogance and self-exaltation. But is there biblical support for Nebuchadnezzar describing himself and Babylons as lions above ordinary people? Uh, of having a lion tattoo? There's no scriptural support and, and the tattoo is very much just an exaggeration. He was wearing lion armor and stuff like that. In fact, it felt very much so that they just continually shoved lion imagery into it to make up for the fact that they did not have Daniel in the lion's den from the later chapters of Daniel. What they had was lions hunting and killing people from the trip to Babylon. They had lions in the, in the wilderness attacking people. In fact, Daniel kills a lion in this fictional movie with its fictional elements. Daniel finds this... He hears a lion, he sprints across the camp, grabs a spear from a sleeping guard, and spears and kills a lion that was gonna go towards Nebuchadnezzar's tent. And then this idea that Nebuchadnezzar was well pleased with him for killing this lion, and so he names him Belteshazzar, saying he has dominion over animals and earth and, and blah, blah, blah I mean, it's just ridiculous that we, we see this. It was literally just forced into the plot to give an explanation for Daniel's renaming from Daniel and explaining what Daniel means to Belteshazzar and explaining what that means. I mean, it really just ticked me off adding in this fictional scene of Daniel spearing a lion to save Nebuchadnezzar. It's not needed at all. We know why Daniel gets favoritism and favored, uh, through the, uh, noble officials and through Nebuchadnezzar, and it's biblically documented. Yet that's what we had was this fictional scene. And then they just really added so much extra side plot or drama- They, they overly dramatized regular scenes of the movie instead of having the actually cinematic parts. King Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the statue, I felt like they failed terribly with that. That could have been such a beautiful dream, and they kind of butchered it. It was probably the coolest part of the movie, but they still butchered it. Then they decided to not show anything else other than the furnace scene. You never get King Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the tree, not the four beasts, not the... And I'm not saying Nebuchadnezzar dreamt of that, but just these elements from Daniel. There's no tree. There's no Nebuchadnezzar running off for seven years thinking he's an animal and going insane with his hair growing like eagle feathers, his, his fingernails like talons, the dew on him as he eats grass like an ox. There's, there's none of that. You don't see these angelic messengers. You don't see the man-like jewels by the, the river. You don't see the goat and the ram. I mean, the writing on the wall. I mean, these were beautiful biblical elements, cinematic scenes that would have made up perfectly. Instead, they overly dramatized a camel walking. They overly dramatized m- m- belly dancers that were supposedly tempting, you know, Daniel and, and his friends because they needed to become Babylonian men. Did they reference the diet scene? Sure. Did they show that the, the men were found to be healthier than the Babylonian guys who indulged in the food? Sure. Did we see them eating only vegetables and water? No. You know? I mean, they didn't really explain it. And for people who don't have a kosher diet background or understand the defilement of Jew- Jewish customary laws of that time period, I mean, it was kind of confusing, to be honest. They, they went about it a very unclear way. Let me see. I got some notes here. Cross symbology. Daniel has a golden cross that he hides because he knows the, uh, Messiah is coming, which was Daniel given that information? Yes. Was he given that information after the furnace scene? No. I mean, they kind of just, like, threw that in there. Like, Daniel's got this golden cross now that is being carried and treasured by the Jewish people after, you know, the B- the exile from Babylon is over. It made no sense. The cross was not a symbol yet like that. Were, were there references to the Messiah and to his death beforehand from the Old Testament? Of course there were. But was the cross widely used as a symbol to represent it? No. I think there may have been some Egyptian, uh, references to cross symbology, but not at that time. It just didn't make sense. It, it, it felt like I just didn't like that at all. This idea that, like, and this is because they made Jesus the fourth man in the furnace. So this is where I could give them some leniency and say, "Do we know who the fourth figure in the furnace was?" No. Could it have been an angelic messenger, or could it have been Yeshua himself? It could have been. So they made a scene, a very dramatic scene, where Yeshua appears. He drops down in a golden beam of light into the furnace, and he hugs and speaks with, uh, at that time, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. And it was a touching scene. Um, you know, it, it was cool. And, and the way that they had Jesus' eyes reflect the fire to kind of seem like the Revelation judgment, that was, that was well done. But again, would it have been better to keep it a silhouette? Of course, because we don't know if it was Yeshua or angelic messenger. There's other scenes in Daniel later on in the chapters where it could be Yeshua or it could be a messenger of a kind. Uh, we aren't always told explicitly who it is. Also, the reference that Babylon-- There was Revelation language. They called Babylon the great prostitute, and they called, um, I guess Jerusalem, like, the daughter, the, the, the church- the groom, the, the, the, the bride, right? Like, there, there was, there was just parts of other scripture being referenced that were yet to exist. And To clarify, you know, I wanna say Babylon is personified as a woman whose humiliation and nakedness will be exposed. You know, you look at Isaiah 47, verses one through three. Babylon is described as a golden cup in the Lord's hand that makes the nations drunk in Jeremiah 51:7. And then Nineveh, not Babylon, is portrayed as a prostitute whose practice is to seize and enslave nations. Prostitution language was used. However, if I recall correctly, D- Daniel or one of the guys specifically said Babylon's the great prostitute and Israel's the bride. And the issue is, was Israel described as God's bride? Yes, that's explicitly supported by scripture. You look at Jeremiah, Isaiah, Hosea, and Isaiah, right? All, all those sections talk about betrothing Israel to, to God as a bride forever in righteousness, justice, love, mercy, and faithfulness. God rejoices over Zion as a bridegroom. He rejoices over his bride. God identifies himself as Israel's husband. God recalls Israel's devotion and love as a bride during the wilderness journey. But the Old Testament also portrays Israel and Judah as prostitutes and adulterous wives. I mean, look at Ezekiel, look at Jeremiah. So are those themes and languages used throughout the Old Testament? Yes. But what they were quoting, the young man, whoever said it, was explicitly from Revelation. And I wanna, I wanna pull up real quick, um, a- the, a scene from Daniel that I think is so important Or rather, I'm not even gonna bring up the actual passage from Daniel because it's just not there, and there's no need for me to just read you what is there because in the movie, in fact, half of the movie is about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and Daniel being commissioned as architects, as designers and builders to create Nebuchadnezzar's golden image. This is not in the Bible. In Daniel 3:1 it says, "Nebuchadnezzar makes a golden image. It measured 60 cubits high, six cubits wide. Uh, he erects it on the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon." It never talks about who physically designed it or constructed it. Nebuchadnezzar did appoint Daniel ruler over the province of Babylon and, and chief perfect over its, you know, wise men and, or prefect. And, you know, Daniel does request that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego be his administrators over the province's affairs. But the, the real biblical truth which they showed is that, you know, the three companions, they refused to serve Nebuchadnezzar's god or worship the golden image. They explicitly refused to bow down to it even when threatened with execution. And they did almost verbatim quote, you know, that they were not going to defend the matter over themselves because they are choosing God. God will rescue them, and if He doesn't, they are glad to have died for God, basically. And so half of the movie is about them building the statue. In fact, it explicitly in the movie has Daniel create plans based off of Solomon in a sense that he's like, "Let's get these big cedars from, from Lebanon or wherever." You know, it was basically some of the construction notes from Solomon. And I really did not like it at all. I really, I truly did not because it created this moral confliction. I can't believe God is making us make an idol. I can't believe that God has taken us to Babylon just to create, uh, false idol statues to worship. Like, there was this moral confliction that never existed according to scripture In fact, it made them seem like worse people because they were doing something that they knew was wrong. And the truth is that based on the characterizations we have from Daniel and his companions, it's most likely that they would not have agreed to build the statue, and they would have chosen death over building the statue. So it felt like a moral compromise that just isn't supported by scripture. Let me see. So again, they, they- I'm looking at my notes here. I pretty much went over everything. You know, the, the main thing being there was just a lot of fiction. It was so much fictional filler. There was parts of the Bible referenced that were after the time period of Daniel. There was parts referenced beforehand that just were, I don't know, felt out of place or forced. This whole fictional relationship with Jeremiah and his sister, and then the sister and Daniel having some kind of romantic tension between them maybe. You know, you don't know. The fact that they had the movie be a story, some person is telling the story of Daniel in the desert, and then a bandit overhears it, and he falls in love with God and basically converts is what they suggest they're showing. And that he had tried to steal the golden cross that Daniel had, and, you know, the true treasure was, i- is, is Yeshua. That's where they're heading to. I, I, I don't know. The movie was a little cryptic at times. And I just hated it. You know, I didn't, I didn't feel this angry about it last night, but the more I think about it, the more it's just brewing inside of me. I'm just grieving and lamenting and, and full of resentment because why? Why have we yet again proven that biblical movies are inaccurate and not good? Why are we still struggling? Why are people who claim to be so passionate about the Bible and about bringing it to life accurately making the same mistakes, making the same filler that is fictional, assuming... We don't need to fill in the gaps. I have had more entertainment reading Daniel multiple times than going to that movie last night. The movie was slow, it overly dramatized the mundane, it added fictional filler that just ticked me off as someone who studies the Bible, and I don't mean to sound so angry right now. I know I'm supposed to be representing, you know, a man of God, but why? Why are we doing this continuously? This has happened over and over again. I have seen so many Bible adaptations that are disrespectful or inaccurate or full of filler. You can create just scene for scene. If you actually did all of Daniel, I don't even know if we could fit it in one movie. And, and if we're making a sequel of this, please don't. The most cinematic part would have been the four beasts or the writing on the wall. I mean, you don't need to make fictional dramatized scenes of romance or lust or temptation or, uh, moral compromise that's not real to keep people incited. The fact that it was an adaptation of Daniel was more than enough, and everything I looked forward to didn't happen Was the scene with the furnace emotionally impactful? Yeah, I think that was well done at least. Was it, you know, did it seem to be heated seven times hotter? Did it kill the guards and consume them? Yeah. So that part was cool in the sense that it was, uh, probably accurate. But everything else, I am just so deeply disappointed. I'm deeply disappointed because my heart yearns for cinematic truth, for biblical truth in the media. The media industry is satanic. It's run by so many awful, evil people. It is nothing but sexualized drama and worldly things. But it's a tool that could be used by great Christian leaders to make biblically accurate content, yet we are failing. We are succumbing by conforming to the world of Hollywood and the media industry. Whatever movie company or brand name you wanna use, whatever it is, we are producing movies that are mirroring what we think people want rather than giving them the biblical truth. It's not about are people gonna be entertained and watch this. If they wanna know the truth, if they wanna see the truth, that's that. We're not gonna change it to appease them. All right? It's not about appeasement. It's not about conformity, and that's why I'm grieved. That is why I'm so angry. And Nebuchadnezzar frustrates me, uh, historically in the sense that Nebuchadnezzar, and I wanna ... because I wanna bring this into a sermon now. Just a little sermon note as we close out Nebuchadnezzar multiple times called upon God through Daniel. He called upon the help of Daniel and his friends who prayed to God and, and got the help he needed. And at the end of each time, he decreed g- this is the true God. The God that Daniel serves is the true God. He did it after the interpretation of the statue dream. You know, he, he recognized it after the furnace incident, and then again when the dream was interpreted of the tree. Yet every time that he had the proof and he said, "This is the true God," he never repented or worshiped God. He just told everyone else to do it. He said, "Everyone, this is what I decree. Serve the God that Daniel serves." And then whispers, "But I'm not gonna do it." And he continually relapses. He is continually given the proof. I mean, it's almost like Pharaoh, right? He's continually given physical explicit proof of God. This dream that no one else could tell him or interpret, Daniel tells him from the revealer of mysteries, God, Yahweh. He sees in the furnace a fourth figure, and the people walk out alive, not a hair singed, and he says, "There is the true God," and doesn't believe still. And in the dream Daniel says, "I'm telling you what this dream means about the tree. Repent." And he's like, "Oh, wow. The god has told you what it means. I'm still not gonna repent." It's not until his sanity is taken away and he lives as an animal for seven years. What a waste. Time and again, he chose himself over God even when he had proof, and that's the thing. We can have proof of God. We can have all the scientific proof, all the biblical proof, the answered prayers, the miracles, whatever it is in your life that has shown you there is God, and we can still choose the world and ourselves over Him more than once It's a relapse. But instead of relapsing, we need to be repenting. Amen? So ladies and gentlemen, what, what is the main message here? Number one, don't ever watch a biblical adaptation without first reading the scripture and reviewing the scripture. If you go in there... And that's why I'm so grieved, people, because this can be leading people astray. Sure, there's that idea of people are gonna watch this movie, get interested and, and go read Daniel and be like, "Okay, yeah, I remember that," or this or that. But what about the people who are using it as their basis and foundation for teaching others, for evangelizing, for spreading false information, for making historical or biblical connections that are assumed rather than truth? That's why I grieve. This is false teaching. Doesn't matter if it's somewhat biblically accurate. It's either completely biblically accurate or it's not. There is no in between. In between is false teaching that only gets muddled more and more over time. It's either biblically accurate or it's not. Amen? I don't mean to be so passionate about it, but I have to be. The heart is put- You know, my heart, the Lord is putting it on my heart, you know? So if you're, if you're thinking of making a biblical adaptation, whether it's a comic book, a graphic novel, artwork, or a movie, whatever it is, please look at the source. We have the source, the Bible. We have what's in it. So ladies and gentlemen, please, you're already having the script, so use it, y'all. I mean, it just grieves me so deeply to see this, the, the, the, this appointment that this was, and the possibility of people being led astray. Don't sell entertainment. Sell the truth. I know they say, you know, that sex sells and romantic tension sells and dram- dramatized biblical scenes that aren't there sell. I get it. I get it. But we're not here to sell. We're here to save. Amen. So please, i- in, in the name of Yeshua, I pray that we would make biblically accurate movies and, and songs and literature and paintings. Whatever medium you're pursuing to spread the truth, please just read the Bible. If you went and if you're gonna go see this movie or any movie or TV series, read the Bible first, read it during, read it after. Don't let your mind be led astray. And I think this i- is, is the wolf in sheep's clothing truly more than anything else. The most dangerous false prophet isn't someone maliciously twisting scripture. It's someone who thinks their right seems good and people work with them and believe them because they're not biblically up to date. Know the truth. This isn't just about media and movies. If you're going to a Bible study group, if you're going to a church, know the word first. Do not let other people and their teachings of the Bible build your foundation because they are not always correct. They are not always malicious, but they're not always correct, and that's important. What is always correct? The scripture. Read it now, read it tomorrow, and read it yesterday, right? So I just pray that the Lord would, would open the eyes of people watching this movie, open the ears. Let them not be led astray, that the producers would reflect on this, that they would see the error of their ways. I, I hope they listen to this, and I know it's, it's gonna tear their heart apart to hear this critical bash on them. But we cannot afford to lead people astray. We cannot. And we shouldn't lead people to the Bible through a false path, and then they find the right way. "Oh, as long as the movie directs people to the Bible." No. We wanna bring them there the right way. We wanna bring them there with accuracy. We don't wanna bring them there with a foundation that has cracks in it, a foundation that has false, you know, narratives in it, fictional characters. And if their incentive is to read the Bible based on something they saw and it's not there, then they're gonna question whether the scripture is true or the movie is true. It's just gonna create a whole bunch of confusion and resentment. So ladies and gentlemen, please, I pray for more biblical accuracy and knowledge in this world. Amen. I ask that you be a part of it by studying, by reading, by serving, by learning, and by teaching. Amen.
