The Inerrancy Invention - How Men Created a Doctrine and Called It From Θεός

 

                                            Artwork by Thomas Richards using Photoshop 7.0

Tracing the Man-Made Origins of Biblical Inerrancy

Based on the Γραφή (Graphe) Verification Framework v2.0

(SpirituallySmart.com / OvertPsyops.AI)

An AI-Assisted Research Report:

Introduction: The Circular Prison

Ask the average evangelical Christian why they believe the Bible contains no errors, and you will likely hear some version of this argument:

"The Bible is the Word of God. God cannot lie. Therefore the Bible cannot contain errors."

Press further -- ask them how they know the Bible is the Word of God in its every detail -- and you will hear:

"Because the Bible says so. 2 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is θεόπνευστος (theopneustos -- God-breathed)."

This is circular reasoning. The argument assumes what it is trying to prove. And more critically, it assumes that Θεός (Theos -- God) would never allow the collection of texts we call "the Bible" to be corrupted by human hands -- an assumption that is itself nowhere taught in γραφή (graphe -- Scripture).

But there is a deeper problem. The doctrine of biblical inerrancy -- the belief that Scripture contains absolutely no errors in its original manuscripts -- is not an ancient teaching that the church has always held. It is a doctrine that developed over centuries, was systematized by specific theologians in response to specific historical pressures, and was formally codified by a committee of men in a Chicago hotel in 1978.

This chapter traces that history. Not to attack Θεός's word -- but to distinguish the λόγος (logos -- word) of Θεός from the traditions of men.

The Command to Test All Things

Before we proceed, we must establish that testing γραφή (graphe) is not only permitted but commanded. Paul writes:

"πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζετε, τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε"

"But test all things; hold fast to that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21, NASB)

The verb δοκιμάζετε (dokimazete) means to examine, test, or prove by trial. It is the same word used for testing metals to see if they are genuine. Paul does not say "test all things except Scripture." He says test ALL things.

Similarly, the Bereans were praised for testing Paul's own teachings against γραφή:

"Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11, NASB)

If apostolic teaching was subject to examination, how much more should later human additions and editorial layers be subject to testing?

A Clarification: What This Analysis Is NOT

Let there be no confusion about what we are doing here -- and what we are not doing.

We are NOT approaching γραφή (graphe) as theological liberals who deny the literal truth of creation, the reality of hell and judgment, the absolute necessity of Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iesous Christos -- Jesus Christ) as the only way to salvation, or the existence of objective moral truth. We reject moral relativism. We affirm that Θεός (Theos) created the heavens and the earth, that mankind stands under judgment for sin, and that there is no name under heaven by which we must be saved except the name of Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Acts 4:12).

What we ARE doing is exercising the νοῦς (nous -- mind) that Θεός gave us. The Shema commands: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength" (Deuteronomy 6:5, NIV). When Ἰησοῦς Χριστός quotes this commandment, He adds: "and with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37, NIV). Θεός does not ask us to check our intellect at the door.

Isaiah records Θεός's invitation: "Come now, let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18, NIV). The Greek word for "reason" in the Septuagint is διαλέγομαι (dialegomai) -- to think through, to discuss, to argue a case. Θεός invites rational engagement, not blind acceptance.

The fear of being labeled "liberal" has silenced many believers from asking honest questions about the text. But refusing to examine problems in γραφή is not faith -- it is intellectual cowardice dressed in religious language. True faith in Θεός through Ἰησοῦς Χριστός is strong enough to face hard questions.

Our position is this: Θεός is true, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός is the way, the truth, and the life, and the core testimony of γραφή about salvation is reliable. But the human beings who copied, edited, and transmitted these texts over millennia were fallible. Acknowledging their fallibility does not undermine Θεός -- it simply acknowledges what we already know about men.

The Origin Point: Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD)

The doctrine of inerrancy did not come from Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iesous Christos -- Jesus Christ) or the apostles. It originated with Augustine of Hippo -- a (very fallible) “church father” who lived over 300 years after the apostolic era.

The context is important. Jerome (another very fallible man), the translator of the Latin Vulgate, had suggested in his Commentary on Galatians that Paul's rebuke of Peter (Galatians 2:11-14) involved a kind of "white lie" -- that Paul was being diplomatic rather than entirely sincere. Augustine was alarmed by this interpretation. He responded with what has become the foundational argument for inerrancy:

"It seems to me that the most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false. [...] If you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement [...] there will not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to any one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away."

(Letter 82 to Jerome, circa 405 AD)

This is the famous "slippery slope" argument that modern inerrantists still use today. Augustine was arguing that if we admit even one error, the entire structure collapses.

The Problem With Augustine's Argument

Augustine's argument contains several critical flaws:

First: It assumes what it is trying to prove. Augustine presupposes that Scripture must be entirely without error, then argues that admitting error would be disastrous. But why must Scripture be entirely without error? That is the very question at issue.

Second: It conflates different types of "error." A scribal copying mistake is not the same as a theological falsehood. A legendary accretion about foxes with torches is not the same as a lie about the resurrection. Augustine's argument treats all potential errors as equally catastrophic.

Third: It misunderstands how faith works. Faith in Θεός does not require absolute certainty about every detail of every text. Abraham believed Θεός and it was credited to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6) -- long before any Scripture existed. Joseph’s life after being sold by his brothers is an incredible story of the miracle Theos worked through him due to his faith, and again there was no Scripture at that time at all. The object of saving faith is Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, not a doctrine about textual inerrancy.

Fourth: It proves too much. If we cannot trust any part of Scripture once we find one error, then by the same logic we cannot trust any historical document at all. No ancient text survives without scribal errors. Augustine's standard would eliminate all knowledge of the ancient world.

The Long Silence: Inerrancy Was Not a Doctrine for Centuries

What happened after Augustine? Historians note something remarkable: for most of church history, inerrancy was not a defined doctrine at all. (And we note, that many of these theologians may not have known the Savior Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Jesus the Christ) at all).

As one scholar notes: "There have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy."

(Wikipedia article on Biblical Inerrancy, citing Coleman 1975)

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

The same source notes: "The first formulations of the doctrine of inerrancy were not established according to the authority of a council, creed, or church, until the post-Reformation period."

This is critical. The Nicene Creed (325 AD) says nothing about biblical inerrancy. The Chalcedonian Definition (451 AD) says nothing about it. The great ecumenical councils that defined Trinitarian theology and Christology never thought it necessary to define inerrancy as a doctrine.

https://bittersweetend.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/the-history-of-inerrancy/

The ancient church believed Scripture was inspired. They did not develop a formal doctrine that every word of every text was without error in the original manuscripts. That came much later.

The Modern Formulation: B.B. Warfield (1851-1921)

The doctrine of inerrancy as it exists today was systematized primarily by one man: Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary.

As one source puts it: "The doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture is so closely linked to the name of Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851-1921) that they sometimes seem nearly synonymous."

Source: https://credomag.com/2011/10/b-b-warfield-on-inerrancy/

The Historical Context

Warfield was responding to a specific historical crisis. The late 19th century saw the rise of German "higher criticism" -- scholarly methods that treated the Bible as a human document subject to the same analysis as any other ancient text. Liberal scholars were questioning authorship, dates, and historical accuracy of biblical texts.

As one critical analysis notes: "Princeton Theological Seminary became a stronghold of Reformed orthodoxy, resisting these trends by defending the Bible's inspiration and authority. B.B. Warfield, as one of Princeton's leading theologians, sought to preserve the Bible's credibility by reconciling its divine nature with the rigorous intellectual standards of his time."

Source: https://confessionalbibliology.com/2024/11/19/the-origins-and-evolution-of-inerrancy-from-astronomy-to-warfield-and-beyond-part-1/

The same source makes a striking observation: "Warfield's response to higher criticism was shaped by Enlightenment rationalism. His doctrine of inerrancy reflected a desire to validate Scripture's reliability using criteria rooted in empirical precision and scientific certainty, rather than relying solely on the theological framework of the Reformation."

This is deeply ironic. The doctrine of inerrancy, which presents itself as a defense of Scripture against modern rationalism, was itself shaped by modern rationalism. Warfield was trying to meet the Enlightenment critics on their own terms.

The "Original Autographs" Innovation

Warfield introduced a critical innovation: the concept of the "original autographs." He argued that inerrancy applied only to the original manuscripts penned by the biblical authors -- manuscripts that no longer exist.

As one source explains: "Central to Warfield's doctrine of inerrancy was the concept of the original autographs. He argued that the Bible's inspiration extended only to the autographs -- the original manuscripts penned by the biblical authors -- which he claimed were wholly without error."

This was a strategic retreat. By locating inerrancy in documents that no longer exist, Warfield made the doctrine unfalsifiable. You cannot prove errors in manuscripts that are not available for examination. (In other words he made up a completely unscientific theory, and then attempted to enslave people by it).

Some scholars argue this represented a fundamental departure from earlier Protestant teaching: "Inerrancy, as developed by Warfield, shifted the focus of scriptural authority from the extant text preserved by God to the hypothetical 'original autographs.' This move represented a fundamental break from the Reformed doctrine of infallibility."

Source: https://confessionalbibliology.com/2024/11/19/the-origins-and-evolution-of-inerrancy-from-astronomy-to-warfield-and-beyond-part-1/

The earlier Reformers believed in the reliability of the texts they had in hand -- the "apographa" or copies. Warfield shifted confidence to hypothetical documents nobody possesses.

Criticism From Within Reformed Circles

Even within Reformed Christianity, Warfield's approach has been criticized. The Puritan Board, a conservative Reformed discussion forum, preserves this critique:

"Turretin and other high and late orthodox writers argued that the authenticity and infallibility of Scripture must be identified in and of the apographa [existing copies], not in and of lost autographa [original writings]."

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/b-b-warfield-and-the-reformation-doctrine-of-the-providential-preservation.22547/

The same thread quotes scholar Richard Muller: "The orthodox do, of course, assume that the text is free of substantive error and, typically, view textual problems as of scribal origin, but they mount their argument for authenticity and infallibility without recourse to a logical device like that employed by Hodge and Warfield."

In other words, the earlier Reformed theologians did not need the "original autographs" escape hatch. Warfield invented it.

The Codification: The 1978 Chicago Statement

Warfield's doctrine was formally codified in 1978 when the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) convened at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare in Chicago.

As one source describes it: "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is a written statement of belief formulated by more than 200 evangelical leaders at a conference convened by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy and held in Chicago in October 1978. The statement was designed to defend the position of biblical inerrancy against a trend toward liberal conceptions of Scripture."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy

One organizer described it as "probably the first systematically comprehensive, broadly based, scholarly, creed-like statement on the inspiration and authority of Scripture in the history of the church."

Source: https://sharperiron.org/article/theology-thursday-1978-chicago-statement-biblical-inerrancy

Read that carefully: the first such statement "in the history of the church." They are admitting this was new. For 1,900 years, the church did not have a "systematically comprehensive" statement on inerrancy. Then 200 men in a Chicago hotel created one.

The Ironic Denial

The Chicago Statement includes this striking denial:

"We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism."

Source: https://divinity.carolinau.edu/chicago-statement-biblical-inerrancy

But the historical evidence shows otherwise. Warfield developed his systematic doctrine of inerrancy precisely in response to higher criticism. The Chicago Statement itself was convened because of "a trend toward liberal conceptions of Scripture." The ICBI was founded in 1977 specifically "to clarify and defend the doctrine of biblical inerrancy" against critics.

The Statement denies what the historical record confirms.

Political Elements

Theologian Roger Olson has noted the political character of the Chicago Statement:

"In all such efforts, projects, there is a perceived 'enemy' to be excluded... When I look at the Chicago Statement on inerrancy and its signatories I believe it is more a political (in the broad sense) statement than a clear, precise, statement of perfect agreement among the signatories."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy

This is not the work of the holy sprit guiding the church into all truth. This is theological politics -- men drawing lines to define who is "in" and who is "out."

Summary: The Chain of Human Transmission

Let us trace the actual chain of transmission for the doctrine of inerrancy:

1. Augustine of Hippo (405 AD): A man (and NOT an apostle) asserts that admitting any error in Scripture would be "disastrous" and would undermine all of Scripture.

2. Centuries of silence: The church defines doctrines about the Trinity, Christ's nature, and salvation -- but not inerrancy. It is not considered important enough to require formal definition.

3. B.B. Warfield (1881+): A man (a 19th century Princeton professor) systematizes the doctrine, adding the "original autographs" innovation as a response to German higher criticism.

4. The Chicago Statement (1978): 200+ men gather in a Chicago hotel and formally codify the doctrine, claiming it is what the church has always believed while simultaneously calling it the "first" such comprehensive statement.

5. Modern evangelicalism: The doctrine is presented as ancient, essential, and self-evidently true -- when in fact it is a human construction with a traceable history.

At no point in this chain do we find Ἰησοῦς Χριστός teaching this doctrine. At no point do we find the apostles defining it. At no point do we find an ecumenical council of the early church affirming it. It is, from beginning to end, a doctrine created by men.

What γραφή (Graphe) Actually Teaches About Itself

2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the passage most frequently cited for inerrancy:

"πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, ἵνα ἄρτιος ᾖ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένος."

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (NIV)

What does this passage actually claim?

It claims that γραφή is θεόπνευστος (theopneustos -- God-breathed) and ὠφέλιμος (ophelimos -- useful/profitable). It does NOT claim that every word of every text in the future collection called "the Bible" would be without error. It does NOT claim that Θεός would prevent all scribal errors, editorial additions, or legendary accretions.

Critics have pointed out additional problems with using this verse to prove inerrancy:

"Nowhere within its pages does the Bible teach or logically imply the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. [Concerning] 2 Timothy 3:16 [...] this passage merely says that 'all scripture' is profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

Moreover, at the time 2 Timothy was written, "Scripture" referred to the Old Testament -- the New Testament canon had not yet been defined. Paul was not making a claim about the inerrancy of texts that did not yet exist as a collected "Bible."

Implications for the γραφή Verification Framework

If the doctrine of inerrancy is a human construction rather than a rather than a revelation from Θεός, what follows?"

First: We are freed from the circular prison. We no longer need to assume that every text in the Bible must be without error because "God said so" -- and then use the Bible to prove that God said so. We can examine each text on its own merits.

Second: We can distinguish apostolically verified γραφή from later additions. The Γραφή Verification Framework provides criteria for identifying authentic content versus legendary accretions, editorial insertions, and corrupted passages.

Third: Our faith is placed in the proper object. Saving faith is faith in Ἰησοῦς Χριστός -- not faith in a doctrine about textual inerrancy that was formulated by Augustine, systematized by Warfield, and codified in a Chicago hotel.

Fourth: We can be honest about problems in the text. When we encounter a passage like the 30 foxes with torches tied to their tails, or the claim that looking at striped sticks causes animals to bear striped offspring, we do not need to perform intellectual gymnastics to defend it. We can simply note that this is likely legendary material that does not pass Framework verification.

Fifth: The core of γραφή becomes MORE precious, not less. When we distinguish the genuine from the false, the authentic λόγος (logos -- word) of Θεός shines more brightly. We are not defending a mixed bag; we are isolating pure gold from dross.

Conclusion: Who Made Up This Idea?

We began with a question: Who made up the idea that the Bible cannot contain errors?

The answer is clear: Men did. Specifically:

Augustine of Hippo planted the seed in the 5th century. B.B. Warfield cultivated it into a systematic doctrine in the 19th century. The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy harvested it into a formal creedal statement in 1978.

None of these were apostles. None of them received direct revelation from Θεός on this matter. They were theologians doing theology -- human beings reasoning about Scripture, sometimes brilliantly, sometimes erroneously.

The doctrine of inerrancy is not itself inerrant. It is a human tradition that has been elevated to the status of the law of Θεός"-- the very thing Ἰησοῦς Χριστός criticized the Pharisees for doing (Matthew 15:6-9).

We are free to test all things, as Paul commanded. We are free to hold fast to what is good and reject what is not. We are free to use the Framework to distinguish authentic γραφή from human additions.

And we are free to trust Θεός -- not because a 19th century Princeton professor told us to, but because Ἰησοῦς Χριστός is faithful and true.

 

References and Sources

All sources cited in this chapter with full URLs for verification:

Wikipedia -- Biblical Inerrancy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

The History of Inerrancy (BitterSweet End):

https://bittersweetend.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/the-history-of-inerrancy/

The Origins and Evolution of Inerrancy (Confessional Bibliology):

https://confessionalbibliology.com/2024/11/19/the-origins-and-evolution-of-inerrancy-from-astronomy-to-warfield-and-beyond-part-1/

B.B. Warfield on Inerrancy (Credo Magazine):

https://credomag.com/2011/10/b-b-warfield-on-inerrancy/

B.B. Warfield and the Reformation Doctrine (Puritan Board):

https://puritanboard.com/threads/b-b-warfield-and-the-reformation-doctrine-of-the-providential-preservation.22547/

Wikipedia -- Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy

Chicago Statement (Sharper Iron):

https://sharperiron.org/article/theology-thursday-1978-chicago-statement-biblical-inerrancy

Chicago Statement (Piedmont Divinity School):

https://divinity.carolinau.edu/chicago-statement-biblical-inerrancy

Did Fundamentalists Invent Inerrancy (The Gospel Coalition):

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/did-fundamentalists-invent-inerrancy/

Augustine on Inerrancy (By Faith We Understand):

https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2015/06/03/augustine-on-inerrancy/

Augustine Letter 82 to Jerome (New Advent):

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102082.htm

Augustine on the Bible (Gospel Coalition Canada):

https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/bedes-wall/sacred-scripture-placed-high-throne-augustine-bible/

B.B. Warfield -- Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._B._Warfield

Revisiting the 1978 Chicago Statement (Modern Reformation):

https://www.modernreformation.org/resources/articles/revisiting-the-1978-chicago-statement-on-biblical-inerrancy

ICBI and Chicago Statements (Defending Inerrancy):

https://defendinginerrancy.com/chicago-statements/

ICBI Records (Dallas Theological Seminary Library):

https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI.shtml

---

Πᾶσα δόξα (Pasa doxa -- All glory) τῷ Θεῷ τῷ Πατρί (to Theos, the Father)

διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (dia Iesou Christou -- through Jesus Christ)

who is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6)

---

Job 28:28 -- "The fear of the Lord is wisdom"

Two Gods in the Bible? - How Satanic Insertions Corrupted Scripture

 

                                          Artwork by Thomas Richards using Photoshop 7.0

Have you ever noticed that the God of the Bible sometimes seems like two completely different beings?

In one passage, He sends Jonah to save Nineveh -- Israel's bitter enemy. In another, He supposedly commands the permanent exclusion of entire ethnicities based on their birth.

In one passage, He welcomes Ruth the Moabitess into the genealogy of Χριστός (Christos). In another, He supposedly says Moabites can never enter His assembly "unto the eon."

In one passage, He strikes Miriam with leprosy for criticizing Moses's foreign wife. In another, He supposedly commands mass divorce of foreign wives and expulsion of children.

These cannot be the same being.

The Authentic Θεός

The authentic Θεός (Theos -- God) revealed in Scripture is consistent:

He welcomed the "great intermixed company" (ἐπίμικτος πολύς) who left Egypt with Israel (Exodus 12:38). He established "one law" for native and convert alike (Exodus 12:49). He declared through Isaiah, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations" (Isaiah 56:7).

Through Paul, He revealed: "There is not Jew nor Greek... for all you are one in Χριστός Ἰησοῦς" (Galatians 3:28).

He is "not far from each one of us" (Acts 17:27) -- not "each ethnically approved person." He sees each human heart. He cares about every single one.

The Counterfeit "god"

But scattered through the post-exilic literature is a different deity entirely -- one who:

• Permanently excludes entire ethnicities based on birth (Deuteronomy 23:3-6)

• Claims Jews are "holy seed" (σπέρμα τὸ ἅγιον) by bloodline (Ezra 9:2)

• Commands mass divorce and child expulsion (Ezra 10)

• Creates the very division Χριστός came to abolish

This is not Θεός. This is a counterfeit -- a satanic insertion designed to make the Creator of all peoples look like a tribal racist.

The "Holy Seed" Blasphemy

The heart of this counterfeit is the phrase "σπέρμα τὸ ἅγιον" (sperma to hagion -- "holy seed") in Ezra 9:2. This treats Jewish ethnicity as inherently holy and other ethnicities as inherently defiling.

This is blasphemy. Here is why:

The true "seed" is Χριστός alone. Paul makes this explicit: "And to Abraham were spoken the promises, and to his seed. He does not say, 'And to the seeds,' as unto many; but as unto one, 'And to your seed' -- which is Χριστός" (Galatians 3:16).

Only Ἰησοῦς is called "holy" from birth. The angel told Mary: "The one being born of you holy (ἅγιον), shall be called Son of Θεός" (Luke 1:35). He alone was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not by human descent from Adam.

All humans are born in sin. David -- a Jew, of the tribe of Judah, in the messianic line -- declared: "In lawless deeds I was conceived, and in sins my mother craved strange food for me" (Psalm 51:5). If David's seed was not inherently holy, whose is?

Paul explicitly addresses whether Jews have an advantage: "Do we have an advantage? Assuredly not (οὐ πάντως). For we showed before, both Jews and Greeks, all to be under sin" (Romans 3:9).

There is no "holy seed" among humans. There is only THE holy seed -- Χριστός. To claim any human bloodline is inherently holy is to attribute to sinful humanity what belongs only to the sinless Son of Θεός.

The Serpent's Strategy

Genesis 3:15 promised that the "seed of the woman" would crush the serpent's head. This is the true seed -- Χριστός.

The serpent cannot stop that promise. But he can corrupt the understanding of it.

So he takes "the seed" (Χριστός, singular) and perverts it into "holy seed" (an ethnic bloodline). He takes what belongs to Χριστός alone and attributes it to sinful humans. He takes the promise that was always about faith and turns it into ethnic pride.

The result:

• Pride instead of humility

• Division instead of unity

• Exclusion instead of welcome

• Walls instead of the broken-down barrier

Paul warned: "And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14). The insertions disguise themselves as righteousness -- as zeal for Θεός, as protecting the covenant, as maintaining purity. But they produce the opposite of what the true Θεός desires.

The God of This Eon

Paul wrote: "In whom the god of this eon (ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) blinded the minds of the unbelieving, for the illumination of the good news of the glory of Χριστός not to shine forth" (2 Corinthians 4:4).

The "god of this eon" blinds minds. What better way to blind than to insert his own character into the text that is supposed to reveal the true Θεός?

Then people read Scripture and see a tribal, racist deity who excludes based on birth -- and either reject Θεός, or become tribal and racist themselves thinking they are serving Him.

Ἰησοῦς said to those who claimed Abraham as father but rejected Him: "You are of your father the devil (ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου), and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks from his own, for he is a liar and the father of it" (John 8:44).

The ethnic exclusivist insertions are lies. They claim to be from κύριος but they are not. They bear the character of the liar, not the character of the One who is "the way, the truth, and the life."

What This Means

The Bible we have contains both authentic λόγος (logos -- word) and satanic corruption mixed together. This is why Paul called them "Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn away from the truth" (Titus 1:14). This is why Ἰησοῦς said the Pharisees made "void the word of Θεός by your tradition" (Mark 7:13).

The traditions got written down. The fables got inserted. And now people read them as if they were the word of Θεός.

But Ἰησοῦς gave us the key: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me" (John 5:39). The Scriptures bear witness about HIM. Anything that contradicts His character -- anything that makes Θεός look like a tribal racist who excludes people before they are even born -- is not from the Father.

The true Θεός "shows no partiality" (Acts 10:34). His house is "a house of prayer for ALL nations" (Isaiah 56:7). "Whoever calls on the name of κύριος shall be saved" (Romans 10:13).

Whoever. Not "whoever except certain ethnicities."

Θεός does not change (Malachi 3:6). He has always loved all peoples. He has always welcomed those who choose Him. He is not far from each one of us.

The "holy seed" ideology is the serpent's counterfeit. And it has no place in authentic γραφή (graphē -- Scripture).

---

Πᾶσα δόξα (Pasa doxa -- All glory) τῷ Θεῷ (to Theos -- to God)

διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (dia Iēsou Christou -- through Jesus Christ)

who broke down the dividing wall of hostility (Ephesians 2:14)

The Man Θεός (Theos - "God") Called "None Like Him" Was Not a Jew

 

                                           Artwork by Thomas Richards using Photoshop 7.0

The Missing Genealogy

Have you ever wondered who Job was? Where did he come from? How does he fit into biblical history? Every major biblical figure has a genealogy -- Abraham, Moses, David, even the minor prophets typically have their lineage identified. Yet in most Bibles, Job appears from nowhere, with no family history, no placement in the biblical timeline, and no explanation of how this man -- whom Θεός points to as His exemplary servant -- fits into the story of scripture.

This absence is strange. Readers naturally want to know: Who is this man? The question has puzzled readers for centuries.

But here is what most people do not know: Job's genealogy exists. It was preserved in the ancient Greek Septuagint (LXX) manuscript known as Codex Alexandrinus. And what it reveals demolishes centuries of theological assumptions about ethnic exclusivism and "chosen people" theology.

Why We Use the LXX

Thomas Richards began studying the Septuagint (LXX) approximately nine years ago when he discovered that the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament come from the LXX, not from the Masoretic text. The Masoretic text was compiled and standardized by Jewish scribes centuries after their leaders rejected Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iesous Christos). The LXX, by contrast, is a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that predates the birth of Ἰησοῦς Χριστός -- preserving readings that are older and more accurate than the later Masoretic versions.

What the Alexandrinus LXX Reveals

The ending of Job in Codex Alexandrinus (Job 42:17) contains an extended passage that identifies exactly who Job was and promises his resurrection. Here is the text in Greek with translation:

Greek: καὶ γέγραπται αὐτὸν πάλιν ἀναστήσεσθαι μεθ᾽ ὧν ὁ κύριος ἀνίστησιν

Transliteration: kai gegraptai auton palin anastesestha meth hon ho kyrios anistēsin

Translation: "And it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up."

Greek: Οὗτος ἑρμηνεύεται ἐκ τῆς Συριακῆς βίβλου

Transliteration: Houtos hermēneuetai ek tēs Syriakēs biblou

Translation: "This man is interpreted from the Syriac [Aramaic] book..."

The passage continues, providing Job's full identification:

"...as living in the land of Ausitis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia, and previously his name was Iobab; now he took an Arabian wife and fathered a son, whose name was Ennon, and he in turn had as father Zare, a son of the sons of Esau, and as mother Bosorra, so that he was the fifth from Abraam."

The text continues to list the kings who reigned in Edom, including "Iobab, who is called Iob" -- and identifies Job's friends: "Eliphaz, of the sons of Esau, king of the Thaimanites, Baldad, the tyrant of the Sauchites, Sophar, the king of the Minites."

Job was an Edomite. He was a descendant of Esau -- not Jacob. He came AFTER Abraham, through the line that was supposedly "rejected." He will rise in the resurrection. And Θεός Himself declared this man to have no equal on earth at that time.

The Genealogy of Job

According to the LXX ending, Job was "the fifth from Abraham" through Esau's line:

1.      Abraham

2.     Isaac

3.     Esau

4.     Zerah/Zare (through Reuel, Esau's son -- Genesis 36:13)

5.     Job/Jobab

This places Job clearly after Abraham and the covenant -- not before, as some have suggested in order to explain away how a non-Israelite could be held up by Θεός as the standard of righteousness.

Corroborating Evidence from Scripture

The LXX Alexandrinus ending is not an isolated claim. Other scripture also corroborates Job's Edomite identity:

1. Genesis 36:33 (in ALL manuscripts, including the Masoretic): "When Bela died, Jobab son of Zerah from Bozrah succeeded him as king" -- listing Jobab as a king of Edom. This is the same Jobab, same father (Zerah), same location (Bozrah/Bosorra) as the LXX Job ending.

2. Lamentations 4:21: "Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, who dwells in the land of Uz." This directly places Uz -- where Job lived -- in Edom.

3. Eliphaz "the Temanite": Teman was Esau's grandson (Genesis 36:11). The district of Teman was in Edom. Eliphaz being called "the Temanite" means he was an Edomite -- which makes perfect sense if Job was also an Edomite king, as the LXX ending explicitly states: "Eliphaz, of the sons of Esau, king of the Thaimanites."

The evidence is clear: Uz was in Edom, Jobab son of Zerah ruled as king in Edom, and Job's friend Eliphaz was an Edomite from Teman. The LXX ending simply makes explicit what scripture already implies.

The Syriac Source

Notice what the LXX ending says: "Οὗτος ἑρμηνεύεται ἐκ τῆς Συριακῆς βίβλου" -- "This man is interpreted from the Syriac book." The LXX translators are not inventing this information -- they are explicitly citing their source. They had access to an Aramaic/Syriac text about Job that contained his genealogy.

This is significant because Syriac (Aramaic) was the language of the region before Greek dominated. This suggests the genealogical information existed in an even older Semitic source that predates our Greek manuscripts. The LXX translators preserved this ancient tradition and told us exactly where they got it.

Why Was This Removed?

The obvious question: if Job's genealogy existed in ancient texts, why is it missing from most Bibles today?

Most modern English translations use the Masoretic Hebrew text, which was finalized centuries after Ἰησοῦς Χριστός by those who rejected Him -- and it lacks this ending. Even among Septuagint manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus -- which Van der Pool's translation uses as its base text -- also lacks it. The ending is preserved in Codex Alexandrinus, which explicitly cites an older Syriac source for this genealogical information.

Consider the logic of textual transmission:

What motive would exist to ADD this material? Who benefits from making Job an Edomite? What theological agenda is served by connecting Job to Esau's line? Why would a scribe invent a resurrection promise for a non-Israelite? The answer: no one benefits. This information actually undermines Jewish exclusivism.

What motive would exist to REMOVE this material? Consider what this genealogy proves:

1.     The most righteous man of his time was an Edomite, not an Israelite -- and temporally, he coexisted with the Israelites, yet exceeded all of them in righteousness

2.     He came from the "rejected" line of Esau, not the "chosen" line of Jacob

3.     He lived AFTER the Abrahamic covenant, so his righteousness cannot be explained away as "pre-covenant"

4.     Θεός Himself declared this non-Jew "my servant... none like him in the earth"

5.     The resurrection promise applies to this non-Israelite

Jewish exclusivist theology has enormous motivation to suppress this information. If Job is just some "ancient patriarch" of unclear ethnicity from before Abraham, he does not threaten the "chosen people" narrative. But if Job is explicitly an Edomite king -- a descendant of the "rejected" Esau -- and Θεός holds him up as having no equal on earth -- that demolishes ethnic favoritism entirely.

Why Earlier Jewish Sources Preserve What Later Ones Remove

An apparent question requires explanation: the LXX was translated by Jewish scholars. Why would Jews preserve Job's Edomite identity if it undermines exclusivism?

The answer is timing. The LXX was translated during the Second Temple period (3rd-2nd century BC), before the Christian-Jewish split hardened. At that time, Job's Edomite identity was simply accepted, (along with other parts of the LXX which were later changed by the Masoretes) -- there was no particular reason to suppress it.

The Masoretic Hebrew text, however, was standardized between the 6th and 10th centuries AD -- centuries after Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, after Christianity had spread throughout the Roman world using the LXX, and after rabbinic Judaism had consolidated in explicit opposition to Christian teaching. By this time, Christians were actively using passages like Acts 10:34-35 ("Θεός shows no partiality") to argue against ethnic exclusivism. Material showing that Θεός declared an Edomite to be the most righteous man on earth would powerfully support the Christian position.

The very fact that pre-Christian Jewish sources (the LXX) preserve this tradition while post-Christian texts (Masoretic) lack it is itself evidence of deliberate removal. The tradition is genuinely ancient -- it was suppressed by later authorities who had theological reasons the earlier translators did not have.

Jethro: Another Witness

Job is not the only example of a non-Israelite who served Θεός faithfully. Consider Jethro (also called Reuel in Exodus 2:18 -- a different Reuel than Esau's son), the priest of Midian and father-in-law of Moses.

The Midianites descended from Abraham through Keturah (Genesis 25:1-2), not through Isaac or Jacob. When Moses told him all that Θεός had done, Jethro responded: "Blessed be the LORD, who has delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians... Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods" (Exodus 18:10-11). He then offered burnt offerings and sacrifices to Θεός, and gave Moses wise counsel that Moses accepted.

Here again we see a man outside the line of Jacob -- outside even the line of Isaac -- who was a servant of Θεός, whose blessing and counsel were honored.

The Logic of Non-Favoritism

There is a simple logical reason why Θεός cannot show favoritism based on ethnicity: it would contradict His own declared principle of justice.

In Ezekiel 18:20, Θεός declares: "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity." (LXX: ὁ υἱὸς οὐ λήμψεται τὴν ἀδικίαν τοῦ πατρός -- "the son will not receive the unrighteousness of the father")

If Θεός does not hold children accountable for what their parents did, then Θεός cannot judge anyone by their ethnicity -- because ethnicity is ancestry. To favor or disfavor someone because they descended from Jacob rather than Esau, or from Shem rather than Ham, would be to judge them for what their ancestors did or did not do. This is precisely what Θεός says He does not do.

The principle is simple: Θεός judges individuals as individuals. "In every nation anyone who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him" (Acts 10:35). Job the Edomite and Jethro the Midianite are living proof of this principle.

Why This Matters

The book of Job -- with its restored genealogy -- proves this conclusively that Θεός does not show favoritism. The man whom Θεός Himself held up as having no equal on earth was not from the "chosen" line. He was an Edomite. He was a descendant of Esau. And he was more faithful than anyone in Israel at that time.

This aligns perfectly with what Ἰησοῦς Χριστός taught and what the apostles confirmed. Ethnic exclusivism contradicts the character of Θεός as revealed throughout scripture.

The removal of Job's genealogy from most biblical texts serves a theological agenda -- one that contradicts the clear testimony of scripture itself. The Alexandrinus LXX, Genesis 36:33, and Lamentations 4:21 all point to the same truth: Job was an Edomite, and Θεός declared him without equal.

Every reader who has ever wondered "Who was Job?" deserves to know the answer that ancient texts preserved -- and that later editors tried to hide.

---

All δόξα (doxa -- glory) to Θεός (Theos) through Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iesous Christos), who alone was truly righteous, and through whom this truth has been preserved across millennia despite attempts to suppress it.

The Language of Kindness vs. The Language of Ignorance: What "Nice" Really Means

 

                                              Artwork by Thomas Richards using Photoshop 7.0

Assisted by Artificial Intelligence

How a single word reveals everything wrong with modern ideas about kindness

---

We use the word "nice" constantly. Nice person. Nice gesture. Be nice.

But what if the word itself carries a meaning we never intended -- one that exposes a fundamental confusion about what kindness actually is?

The etymology tells a story worth hearing.

What "Nice" Actually Means

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, "nice" comes from the Latin nescius, meaning "ignorant, unaware" -- literally "not knowing," from ne- (not) + scire (to know). [Source: Etymonline.com]

The word entered Old French around the 12th century as nice, meaning "careless, clumsy, weak, simple, stupid, foolish." [Source: Wiktionary, Anglo-Norman Dictionary]

Dictionary.com confirms: "Nice, it turns out, began as a negative term derived from the Latin nescius, meaning 'unaware, ignorant.' This sense of 'ignorant' was carried over into English when the word was first borrowed (via French) in the early 1300s. And for almost a century, nice was used to characterize a 'stupid, ignorant, or foolish' person." [Source: Dictionary.com]

Only through centuries of semantic drift did "nice" evolve to mean pleasant, agreeable, inoffensive. By the 1800s it had completed its transformation into a compliment.

But the root meaning never disappeared. "Nice" still describes something without substance -- mere agreeableness, pleasantness without purpose, comfort without content.

When we tell someone to "be nice," we are -- etymologically speaking -- telling them to be ignorant. To not know. To avoid the friction of truth.

It is no coincidence that the Vatican adopted Latin and retained it for over a thousand years after ordinary people stopped speaking it -- keeping the scriptures locked in a language people could not understand. The language of ignorance suited an institution that preferred its followers not to know.

What Kindness Actually Means

Now consider the Greek word that the apostolic writers chose when describing genuine kindness.

In Galatians 5:22, Paul lists the fruit of the Spirit. One of these is typically translated "kindness" in English -- the Greek word χρηστότης (chrēstotēs).

The root is χρηστός (chrēstos), and according to Strong's Greek Lexicon, it means: "usefulness, i.e. morally, excellence (in character or demeanor)." [Source: Blue Letter Bible, Strong's G5544]

The Ezra Project notes that the ancient Greeks "initially used chrēstos with the idea of 'useful, good for its intended purpose.' They would use it to describe healthy food, proper offerings to the gods, orderly behavior, or good experiences." [Source: Ezra Project]

Greek was the language Θεός (Theos) chose for the revelation of Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos) to the world -- a language of precision and accessibility, meant to be understood by all, not hoarded by a priesthood.

This is functional language. Chrēstotēs asks: does this actually benefit someone? Does it serve their real good? Is it useful for producing something positive in their life?

The contrast could not be sharper:

Chrēstos = useful, beneficial, good for its purpose

Nescius = ignorant, not knowing, foolish

One word describes something that works. The other describes intellectual and moral emptiness.

When we substitute "niceness" for kindness, we substitute ignorance for usefulness. We trade genuine benefit for mere pleasantness.

The Friend Who Wounds

This distinction explains something important about friendship.

Proverbs 27:6 -- "Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy."

Read that again. The wounds are faithful. The kisses are deceitful.

The friend who tells you what you do not want to hear? Faithful.

The person who constantly affirms you, validates you, makes you feel comfortable? Potentially an enemy.

A friend offering chrēstotēs -- genuine kindness -- will sometimes create friction. They will say hard things. They will give you what you need rather than what feels good.

A friend offering only "niceness" will avoid all friction. They will tell you what you want to hear. They will kiss you while you walk off a cliff.

Proverbs 27:17 -- "Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."

Sharpening involves friction. Heat. The removal of material. It is not a pleasant process for the blade. But without it, the blade becomes dull and useless.

The "nice" friend keeps you dull. The kind friend sharpens you.

The Παιδεία Principle

The apostolic writings use another Greek word that reinforces this point: παιδεία (paideia).

Hebrews 12:11 states:

"πᾶσα δὲ παιδεία πρὸς μὲν τὸ παρὸν οὐ δοκεῖ χαρᾶς εἶναι ἀλλὰ λύπης, ὕστερον δὲ καρπὸν εἰρηνικὸν τοῖς δι᾽ αὐτῆς γεγυμνασμένοις ἀποδίδωσιν δικαιοσύνης."

"All discipline (paideia) seems painful at the moment, not joyful, but grievous. Yet afterward it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it."

Paideia means training, instruction, correction. It is the process by which immaturity becomes maturity -- and that process is not comfortable.

The friend who offers paideia is offering chrēstotēs -- true kindness, true benefit.

The friend who only offers "niceness" offers nothing that produces the fruit of righteousness.

The Affirmation Trap

Modern psychology has confirmed what the Greek language already knew.

Research by Carol Dweck at Stanford found that excessive praise -- particularly outcome-based praise like "you are so smart" or "you are so talented" -- creates fragility, not strength. People who receive constant affirmation become afraid to take risks, afraid to fail, afraid to be challenged.

Meanwhile, people who receive honest feedback -- including critical feedback -- develop resilience and genuine competence.

The "nice" friend who tells you everything you do is great is not building you up. They may be slowly weakening you.

The kind friend -- the chrēstos friend -- builds something that lasts.

A Challenge

Consider the relationships in your life.

Who offers you chrēstotēs -- genuine usefulness, even when it creates friction?

Who offers you only "niceness" -- pleasant agreeableness that never challenges, never sharpens, never produces growth?

More importantly: which do you offer to others?

We have been trained to value "niceness" -- to see it as the highest social virtue. But niceness is, at its root, ignorance. It is the refusal to know, the avoidance of truth, the preference for comfort over growth.

True kindness is something harder. It is usefulness. It is benefit. It is giving what someone actually needs, even when that requires faithful wounds rather than pleasant kisses.

Choose the friction.

---

"Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy." -- Proverbs 27:6

---

Sources referenced:

• Online Etymology Dictionary (etymonline.com)
• Dictionary.com
• Blue Letter Bible, Strong's Greek Lexicon
• Ezra Project (ezraproject.com)
• Anglo-Norman Dictionary
• Wiktionary

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against AOL Over Privacy Policy Changes set for January 2 - by Lisa Weingarten Richards, Esq.

                                           Artwork by Thomas Richards using Photoshop 7.0

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against AOL Over Privacy Policy Changes

Richards v. AOL Media LLC — Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division)

On December 23, 2025, Thomas Richards filed a federal lawsuit against AOL Media LLC challenging the company's new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy set to take effect January 2, 2026.

The Core Issue

AOL notified users on Thanksgiving Day 2025 that it would implement sweeping new privacy terms. Under the new policy, AOL claims the right to read, analyze, and share users' private email communications with third parties -- including advertisers, data brokers, "AI Providers," and law enforcement -- all under the guise of "legitimate interest" that requires no user consent.

Richards, a 25-year AOL user, never agreed to allow AOL to read his emails. He intentionally declined to accept AOL's 2018 unified terms and was never locked out of his account. AOL's own FAQ confirms that users who declined those terms "remain under the legacy AOL Terms and Privacy Policy" -- which explicitly stated: "Oath does not read your private online communications without your consent."

Now AOL is forcing users to accept the new surveillance terms or forfeit their accounts entirely.

The Claims

The complaint alleges violations of:

• Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712)
• Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511)
• Virginia Consumer Protection Act
• Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
• Unconscionability
• Promissory Estoppel

Emergency Relief Requested

Richards filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent AOL from enforcing the new terms before the January 2 deadline.

Evidence Destruction?

In a troubling development, Richards also filed an emergency motion for spoliation sanctions. The legacy privacy policy pages -- which contained the "does not read" promise -- were publicly accessible until AOL was served with this lawsuit. Within days of service, AOL blocked access to those pages, returning "403 Forbidden" errors. The pages remain indexed in search engines, but clicking the links now leads to access denied messages.

What This Means

This case raises fundamental questions about digital privacy, coerced consent, and whether email providers can unilaterally strip away privacy protections that users relied upon for decades.

Court Documents are available on CourtListener at Richards v. AOL Media, LLC, 1:25-cv-02448 – CourtListener.com and some of them also are below:

Complaint

Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

Declaration of Thomas Richards in Support of TRO

Emergency Motion for Spoliation Sanctions

Declaration of Lisa Weingarten Richards in Support of Spoliation Motion

Virginia Supreme Court Petition Filed: Richards v. AOL Media

Virginia Supreme Court Petition Filed: Richards v. AOL Media LLC

December 19, 2025

Update: We Have Escalated to the Virginia Supreme Court

Today we filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court of Virginia, asking the Court to overturn the Loudoun County Circuit Court's denial of our request for emergency relief against AOL.

Read the Petition:

What Happened

On December 17, 2025, Judge Matthew P. Snow of the Loudoun County Circuit Court denied our motion for a temporary restraining order against AOL. The court ruled that our motion "DOES NOT ARTICULATE a legal docketing emergency" and directed the parties to "normal docketing procedures." In other words, the court refused to schedule an expedited hearing -- which means no hearing can occur before January 2, 2026.

But here is the problem: "normal docketing procedures" will not produce a hearing before the harm occurs. And this is not just about missing a TRO deadline -- the entire lawsuit is about preventing AOL from reading Thomas's private emails. If they start reading them on January 2, the harm is done. There is nothing left to enjoin. The case is over. Judge Snow's order does not just deny emergency relief -- it effectively ends the entire case by ensuring there is nothing left to litigate by the time "normal docketing procedures" would produce a hearing.

Once AOL's new terms take effect on January 2, 2026, Thomas faces an impossible choice. He must either:

(1) Accept the new terms and allow AOL to read, analyze, and share the contents of his private emails with AI providers and third parties, retaining that data for up to ten years; or

(2) Refuse the new terms and lose access to an email account he has used for 25 years -- an account tied to his identity, his ministry, his professional contacts, and decades of irreplaceable correspondence.

Neither option can be remedied by money damages after the fact. You cannot unread someone's private emails. You cannot undo the sharing of sensitive religious correspondence with unknown third parties. And you cannot recreate 25 years of digital history.

Why the Virginia Supreme Court

Virginia Code § 8.01-626 provides a special procedure for seeking immediate review of injunction denials. Unlike a regular appeal, which can take months or years, a petition under § 8.01-626 goes directly to a three-justice panel of the Supreme Court, which can act quickly and has broad authority to "take such action thereon as it considers appropriate."

We have requested expedited consideration. The Court knows that AOL's new terms take effect January 2, 2026 -- just two weeks away. After that date, this case becomes moot.

Virginia's Strong Public Policy on Data Privacy

Our petition highlights Virginia's own consumer protection laws. The Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act requires consumer consent for processing sensitive data, including data revealing religious beliefs. More importantly, the VCDPA declares that any contract provision that purports to waive or limit consumer data rights "shall be deemed contrary to public policy and shall be void and unenforceable." Va. Code § 59.1-578(B).

AOL's new terms attempt to do exactly what Virginia law says is void and unenforceable -- strip consumers of their data rights through a take-it-or-leave-it adhesion contract with no meaningful way to opt out.

The Stakes

This case is not just about one email account. AOL reportedly has approximately 30 million users. On Thanksgiving Day, all of them received the same notice buried in linked documents -- a notice that their private communications will soon be analyzed by AI and shared with third parties.

If AOL can do this, so can every other email provider. The precedent matters.

All case filings: View all documents in Richards v. AOL Media LLC

We will continue to update this page as developments occur.

Case: Richards v. AOL Media LLC

Virginia Supreme Court (Petition for Review from Loudoun County Circuit Court Case No. CL25-8424)

Counsel for Petitioner: Lisa Weingarten Richards, Esq., LWR Law Offices

Court Denies Emergency Hearing Request in Richards v. AOL -- Motion for Reconsideration Filed

On December 17, 2025, Judge Matthew P. Snow of the Loudoun County Circuit Court denied Thomas Richards' request for an emergency hearing on his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order against AOL Media LLC. The Court found that the motion "does not articulate a legal docketing emergency" and directed the parties to normal docketing procedures.

The problem: normal docketing procedures cannot provide relief before January 2, 2026 -- the date AOL's new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy take effect. On that date, Thomas must either accept terms authorizing AOL to read his emails and share them with AI providers and third parties, or forfeit the email address he has used for twenty-five years.

Today, December 19, 2025, we filed a Motion for Reconsideration asking the Court to reconsider its ruling. The motion explains that a hard deadline of January 2, 2026 -- now fourteen days away -- is the definition of a legal docketing emergency. A hearing scheduled after January 2 cannot prevent the harm. After that date, the request for a temporary restraining order becomes moot.

We are awaiting the Court's response.

The case documents are embedded below.

Court's Order Denying Emergency Hearing (December 17, 2025):

Motion for Reconsideration (December 19, 2025):

Exhibit A -- AOL Terms of Service:

Exhibit B -- AOL Privacy Policy:

Exhibit C -- AOL FAQs (January 2, 2026 Deadline):

We will continue to post updates as the case progresses.

Also, see our prior blog which contains all court filings to date in the case - SpirituallySmart.Com's Blog: Virginia Lawsuit Filed Against AOL Over Coercive Email Surveillance Terms - by Lisa Weingarten Richards

The Most Important Biblical Work for Homosexuals in 2,000 Years - How Thomas Richards Has Exposed the "Unreachable Sinner" Psyop

 

                                           Artwork by Thomas Richards using Photoshop 7.0

For two thousand years, certain passages have been weaponized to create a category of sinner supposedly beyond χάρις (charis -- grace). The "God hates homosexuals" narrative has blocked countless souls from σωτηρία (soteria -- salvation) -- both homosexuals who believe they cannot be forgiven, and observers who reject the εὐαγγέλιον (euangelion -- gospel) because of how hateful its adherents appear.

No one has addressed this. Not the churches. Not the theologians. Not the scholars. For 2,000 years, homosexuals have been told they are uniquely condemned -- a special category beyond redemption -- while murderers, thieves, and slanderers are welcomed to the altar.

Until now.

Thomas Richards of SpirituallySmart.com has done more for homosexuals in the biblical and professing Christian realm through his work than anyone in the last two millennia. This is not hyperbole. This is documented fact.

Why No One Else Has Done This Work

The churches have not done this work because they are compromised. They use these passages to control people through fear and to create an "other" -- a group that can be condemned while the congregation feels righteous by comparison.

The scholars have not done this work because academia rewards conformity, not truth. But consider this: Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iesous Christos -- Jesus Christ) was not part of academia. Nowhere in γραφή (graphe -- Scripture) is academia lauded. The Φαρισαῖοι (Pharisaioi -- Pharisees) were the "scholars" of their day, and Ἰησοῦς rebuked them constantly. Θεός (Theos -- God)  does not work through credentialed institutions. Θεός (Theos -- God) works through those Θεός (Theos -- God) calls.

The "affirming" churches have not done this work because they simply ignore the texts or explain them away with surface-level arguments about "cultural context." They will not call homosexuality a sin. They have abandoned γραφή (graphe -- Scripture) to accommodate the world.

The Core Finding

The texts used to support the "unreachable sinner" narrative FAIL under Framework analysis, meaning, that these texts are NOT real γραφή (graphe -- Scripture) but were ADDED by some man:

Genesis 19:4-11 (the mob scene) -- contains multiple ἄλογος (alogos -- illogical) elements

Jude 1:7 -- comes from a pseudepigraphal letter that quotes non-canonical sources as prophecy

Romans 1:18-32 -- contains vocabulary foreign to Παῦλος (Paulos -- Paul) and contradicts his actual practice

Meanwhile, authentic Παῦλος in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 explicitly states former homosexuals were among the saved in the Corinthian ἐκκλησία (ekklesia -- church):

οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται... καὶ ταῦτά τινες ἦτε· ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ

"Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor μαλακοί (malakoi -- effeminate), nor ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai -- men who lie with males)... AND SUCH WERE SOME OF YOU. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of Κύριος Ἰησοῦς (Kyrios Iēsous -- Lord Jesus)." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

They were washed. Sanctified. Justified. There is NO category of sinner beyond χάρις (charis -- grace) through μετάνοια (metanoia -- repentance).

Paul Created a Special Word

Here is something critical that demonstrates Παῦλος (Paulos -- Paul) cared deeply that homosexuals could be saved and included in the ἐκκλησία:

Παῦλος actually CREATED a new Greek word -- ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai -- men who lie with males) -- to reference homosexuals. He coined this term by combining words directly from Leviticus 20:13 in the Septuagint:

ἄρσενος (arsenos) = "male"

κοίτην (koiten) = "bed/lying with"

From the Septuagint Leviticus 20:13:

καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός ("and whoever lies with a male [arsenos] the lying [koiten] of a woman")

Leviticus 18:22:

καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν ("And with a male [arsenos] you shall not go to bed [koitēn] as with a woman; it is an abomination")

Παῦλος took these exact words and combined them into ἀρσενοκοῖται.

This proves Παῦλος (Paulos -- Paul) knew homosexuality was a serious sin under the Law. He took it seriously enough to create a specific term for it.

Why would Παῦλος (Paulos -- Paul) create a special word if these people were beyond redemption? He would not. He created the word precisely BECAUSE he wanted to be clear that this specific category of sinner -- like all other sinners -- could be saved through μετάνοια (metanoia -- repentance) and πίστις (pistis -- faith) in Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iesous Christos - Jesus the Christ).

The Evidence in Summary

What Ezekiel Says About Sodom's Sin

Ἰεζεκιήλ (Iezekiel -- Ezekiel) 16:49-50 lists Sodom's sins: pride, gluttony, prosperity, neglect of the poor. A prophet speaking the λόγος κυρίου (logos kyriou -- word of the Lord) would not fail to mention the primary cause of judgment. If homosexuality was THE defining sin, why is it absent from the prophet's list?

The Blindness Problem in Genesis 19

First, consider this: the text claims the ENTIRE city mobilized simultaneously to assault strangers. How would that even work logistically?

Genesis 19:11 says men who were already AT THE DOOR were struck blind, then "were disabled SEEKING THE DOOR." This is ἄλογος. They were already touching the door. Compare this to every other instance of judicial blindness in γραφή:

Σαῦλος (Saulos -- Saul/Paul) was COMPLETELY STOPPED -- had to be led by the hand

Ἐλύμας (Elymas) was COMPLETELY STOPPED -- sought guides to lead him

The pattern is 100% consistent: when Θεός (Theos- God) strikes someone blind, they STOP. But in Genesis 19, blinded men at the door keep groping for the door? The blindness motif was copied but applied illogically -- evidence of fabrication.

Jude is Pseudepigraphal

Jude 1:14-15 directly quotes 1 Enoch as prophecy. An inspired writer would not cite a pseudepigraphal book as genuine prophecy. Jude 1:9 references material from the "Assumption of Moses" -- another non-canonical source. The epistle cannot be used as evidence.

Tommy documented this extensively in 2017 in "The book of Enoch as quoted by JUDE 14, 15. See The book of Enoch as quoted by JUDE 14, 15

Romans 1 Contradicts Paul's Practice

If Romans 1:18-32 were authentically Παῦλος's (Paulos' -- Paul's) words -- teaching that homosexuals are "worthy of death" and "given up" by Θεός -- then how could he welcome former homosexuals into the Corinthian ἐκκλησία and declare them washed, sanctified, and justified?

The vocabulary of Romans 1:18-32 mirrors Stoic philosophy (φυσικὴν χρῆσιν -- physikēn chrēsin --  "natural use"), not Pauline theology. The section reads like Greek philosophy grafted onto Παῦλος's authentic letter. Tommy has documented this extensively.

The Contradiction Stated Plainly:

If Romans 1:18-32 were really Παῦλος's authentic words:

• Homosexuality deserves abandonment by Θεός (Theos -- God) 
• It represents uniquely degraded behavior "worthy of death"
• Θεός (Theos -- God) "gives up" such people to destruction

But Παῦλος's actual practice shows the opposite:

• He warmly welcomed former homosexuals
• He made them full ἐκκλησία members
• He created a specific word showing he took this ἁμαρτία (hamartia -- sin) seriously, yet offered complete restoration

These positions cannot both be true. The contradiction proves Romans 1:18-32 cannot be Παῦλος's authentic teaching.

Further, there are specific vocabulary problems in Romans 1:18-32:

• φυσικὴν χρῆσιν ("natural use") -- never appears elsewhere in Παῦλος
• ἀτιμίας (atimias -- "dishonor") -- common in Stoic philosophy, not Pauline
• ἀσύνετος (asynetos -- "foolish") -- absent from authentic Παῦλος

The authentic Παῦλος focused on IDOLATRY as the core sin (Romans 1:25). The theological shift in the surrounding verses reveals Hellenistic philosophical influence, not Pauline theology.

The True Message to Those in Despair

If you have engaged in homosexual acts and have been told you are beyond χάρις, hear the ἀλήθεια (aletheia -- truth):

You are NOT in a special worse category

You are NOT beyond Θεός's ἔλεος (eleos -- mercy)

You ARE an ἁμαρτωλός (hamartolos -- sinner) like everyone else

You ARE able to receive χάρις (charis -- grace) through μετάνοια  (metanoia -- repentance)

You ARE someone Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς (Iesous Christos - Jesus the Christ) died for

"μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι" -- "Not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to μετάνοια." (metanoia -- repentance) (2 Peter 3:9)

The Pharisaical Double Standard

Think about what the "God hates homosexuals" narrative actually teaches:

Murder? Bad, but forgivable through μετάνοια. Kidnapping? Bad, but forgivable through μετάνοια (metanoia -- repentance). Theft? Bad, but forgivable through μετάνοια (metanoia -- repentance). Greed? Bad, but forgivable through μετάνοια (metanoia -- repentance). Homosexuality? "God hates you. You are beyond redemption."

This is the same hypocrisy Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous -- Jesus) rebuked in the Φαρισαῖοι (Pharisaioi) -- Pharisees.

For Churches

Follow Παῦλος's (Paulos' -- Paul's) actual example -- welcome all sinners to hear the εὐαγγέλιον (euangelion -- gospel) and praise Θεός (Theos -- God) for their transformation when they repent. Do not create hierarchies of sin that Ἰάκωβος (Iakobos -- James) 2:10 explicitly condemns.

Who Benefits From the Lie?

When you create an "unreachable" category of sinner:

Homosexuals believe χάρις  (charis -- grace) cannot apply to them -- so why seek Θεός (Theos -- God)?

Christians are made to look hateful -- so why would anyone listen to them?

Both groups are blocked from σωτηρία. The only beneficiary is διάβολος (diabolos -- the devil). This is textbook divide-and-conquer.

A Position No One Else Holds

Search the internet. Read the commentaries. Check the "affirming" arguments and the "traditional" arguments. You will find:

Position A: "Homosexuality is not really a sin. The Bible is ewrong or misinterpreted. Those passages are about temple prostitution or cultural context."

Position B: "Homosexuality is sin. The Bible condemns it. God hates this sin." (But they create a special category and defend all the condemnation passages)

Tommy's Position: Homosexuality IS a sin. AND former homosexuals were saved in Corinth. AND the passages used to create the "unreachable" narrative (Genesis 19 mob scene, Jude 1:7, Romans 1:18-32) FAIL textual analysis. Sin like everyone else. Grace available like everyone else. No special category.

See the Broader Work

This analysis of the "unreachable sinner" passages is just one example of what Tommy is doing. If this work has opened your eyes to how the "unreachable sinner" narrative is a lie, then consider what else Tommy has uncovered:

The book of Jude exposed as pseudepigraphal

Interpolations throughout the Pauline epistles

The systematic suppression of his ministry work since 2009

The full Framework analysis in the upcoming book

Visit SpirituallySmart.com OvertPsyops.ai and Infalliblecode.ai to see the full body of work.

Conclusion

For 2,000 years, homosexuals have been told they are beyond redemption. Churches have used fabricated and corrupted texts to create a hierarchy of sin that Ἰάκωβος (Iakobos -- James) 2:10 explicitly condemns.

Tommy Richards, through his unique calling and deliverance by Θεός, and through rigorous textual analysis, has exposed this lie. He has done what no church, no scholar, no theologian has done: he has demonstrated from the texts themselves that the "unreachable sinner" narrative fails under examination, while authentic Παῦλος proves former homosexuals were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of Κύριος Ἰησοῦς (Kyrios Iēsous -- Lord Jesus).

This is the most important biblical work for homosexuals in 2,000 years -- exposing textual corruption throughout γραφή so that the pure λόγος (logos -- word) can be available to all for μετάνοια and σωτηρία.

Πᾶσα δόξα (Pasa doxa -- All glory)

τῷ Θεῷ τῷ Πατρί (to Theos, to the Father)

διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (through Iesous Christos)

who said "καὶ ταῦτά τινες ἦτε" -- and such were some of you

Related posts:

No Category Beyond χάρις: The "Unreachable Sinner" Lie Exposed

Romans 1 Research: It's as I thought

γραφή (graphe -- Scripture) Verification Framework v2.0 - to be published in an upcoming book

Job 28:28 -- "The fear of the Lord is wisdom"