Team GotQuestions Blog

a Blog for Sharing Stories, Tips & Encouragement

Age of the Earth / Steve Webb’s Credentials

September 27th, 2014

Why should you listen to me when it comes to age of the Earth questions? My words are not inspired. I am not infallible. There are sincere influential Christians who disagree with me. I don’t claim to be the smartest geologist on the planet. And I have less prestige than many geologists who have published more than me. So why should you listen to me?

First of all, I truly do honor the Bible as God’s fully inspired and accurate Word (plenary inspiration). Since my youth I have been a believer and have never wavered from the faith. My reputation and church standing in that regard are impeccable. I even have a Master of Divinity degree from Liberty Univ. in addition to my geology degrees. You might want to listen to me even if you are inclined to dislike my words just so you can hear a side of the debate that you might not have heard before.

But there is another reason I would like for you to know. I have spent all but the last 3 years of my career working for the largest oil company in the world, and by some measures it is the largest corporation in the world. Whether or not that inspires any confidence, it has done one important thing for me: it has given me direct access to fabulous amounts of data, particularly since the company has transferred me so much (often at my request). I have lived in Indonesia, Russia, Nigeria, Kuwait, Qatar, Argentina, America, now in India, and have worked the geology of quite a number of other regions that I could list. I have seen well data, seismic, gravity, paleontology, magnetics, geochem, outcrop, and other kinds of data that far exceed what most geologists see in their lifetime, and it especially exceeds what virtually all university professors and people working for small companies are able to see. There are few geologists who have seen as much as I have during my nearly 40-year long career.
In retrospect, I have become pretty familiar with the geology of this planet.

That still doesn’t make me infallible. You will have to decide who you believe and not believe when it comes to extra-biblical information, but I do wish you would consider the arguments I have made in my past communications. From a scientific point of view the Earth appears significantly older than 6000 years. It really does. That conclusion is not going to go away in the future – there is way too much interlinking information backing it. And, critically important, I don’t believe this contradicts the Bible in the slightest. I ask that you at least keep an open mind on it. And importantly, realize that your stand on this issue affects the faith of others. I personally know people who would like to believe the Bible but cannot because they think it requires them to believe in a 6000 year old Earth. We are to “be wise in the way you act towards outsiders, making the most of every opportunity” (Col. 4:5). Grace and peace, Steve Webb

Why should you listen to me when it comes to age of the Earth questions? My words are not inspired. I am not infallible. There are sincere influential Christians who disagree with me. I don’t claim to be the smartest geologist on the planet. And I have less prestige than many geologists who have published more than me. So why should you listen to me? </p> <p>First of all, I truly do honor the Bible as God’s fully inspired and accurate Word (plenary inspiration). Since my youth I have been a believer and have never wavered from the faith. My reputation and church standing in that regard are impeccable. I even have a Master of Divinity degree from Liberty Univ. in addition to my geology degrees. You might want to listen to me even if you are inclined to dislike my words just so you can hear a side of the debate that you might not have heard before. </p> <p>But there is another reason I would like for you to know. I have spent all but the last 3 years of my career working for the largest oil company in the world, and by some measures it is the largest corporation in the world. Whether or not that inspires any confidence, it has done one important thing for me: it has given me direct access to fabulous amounts of data, particularly since the company has transferred me so much (often at my request). I have lived in Indonesia, Russia, Nigeria, Kuwait, Qatar, Argentina, America, now in India, and have worked the geology of quite a number of other regions that I could list. I have seen well data, seismic, gravity, paleontology, magnetics, geochem, outcrop, and other kinds of data that far exceed what most geologists see in their lifetime, and it especially exceeds what virtually all university professors and people working for small companies are able to see. There are few geologists who have seen as much as I have during my nearly 40-year long career.<br /> In retrospect, I have become pretty familiar with the geology of this planet. </p> <p>That still doesn’t make me infallible. You will have to decide who you believe and not believe when it comes to extra-biblical information, but I do wish you would consider the arguments I have made in my past communications. From a scientific point of view the Earth appears significantly older than 6000 years. It really does. That conclusion is not going to go away in the future – there is way too much interlinking information backing it. And, critically important, I don’t believe this contradicts the Bible in the slightest. I ask that you at least keep an open mind on it. And importantly, realize that your stand on this issue affects the faith of others. I personally know people who would like to believe the Bible but cannot because they think it requires them to believe in a 6000 year old Earth. We are to “be wise in the way you act towards outsiders, making the most of every opportunity” (Col. 4:5). Grace and peace, Steve Webb
  • Seen by 57
    Jeff Laird and 5 others like this.
  • Alyson Dreyer Is it not possible for God to create something with the appearance of age? A full grown Man? A mature tree? Flowers already in bloom?
    September 26 at 8:09pm · Like · 2
  • Steve Ray Webb Hi Alyson, of course it is. I have commented on that several times in the past, and I have never taken serious objection to that position. But there are several problems with going in that direction, one of them being that I don’t meet many Christians who steadfastly hold to that position. It is just a temporary retreat while continuing to argue for a 6000 year Earth.
    September 26 at 8:13pm · Like
  • Corpuz Valdemor Avellaneda Ramil I thought Adam and Eve were created as adults and God created the earth with characteristics of a billion year old planet.
    September 26 at 8:28pm · Edited · Like
  • Corpuz Valdemor Avellaneda Ramil Alyson Dreyer why “appearance” only. Don’t you think God is not able to create a 10 billion year old earth that only existed for 6,000 years?
    September 26 at 8:30pm · Like · 1
  • Steve Ray Webb Corpuz Valdemor Avellaneda Ramil, perfectly fine to take that position. I just ask that you be consistent in it, especially when talking to well educated unbelievers.
    September 26 at 8:30pm · Like · 1
  • Corpuz Valdemor Avellaneda Ramil I will Steve Ray Webb. When I talk with educated unbelievers.
    September 26 at 8:32pm · Like
  • Evan Plante Thank you Steve. I really appreciate this insider information…and especially from a brother who does not see this as incongruent with Scripture. I’m of exactly the same mind…but with only a layman’s geological understanding. I uphold the inerrancy of Scripture and never flinch at the old-earth data. Bless you!
    September 27 at 3:03am · Like · 2
  • Daniel Pasono So then, considering all of that data, how old do the Earth appear to be?
    September 27 at 5:08am · Like
  • Paul W Collins There is not now nor has there ever been a device, machine, tool or process that can accurately determine the age of a rock. We either take God at his Word or we do not.
    September 27 at 5:44am · Like · 3
  • Steve Ray Webb Evan Plante, thank you!
    Daniel Pasono, once you accept anything older than around 6000 years you have lost the 1 day = 24 hour connection. 20,000 years is as good as 5 billion years. Take your pick. You might as well go with what scientists are thinking. I routinely work in millions of years. I have never worked with any geology that dated in the billions of years. Oil was not around that long.
    September 27 at 5:49am · Like
  • Steve Ray Webb Paul W Collins, I do exactly that. I encourage you to do the same!
    September 27 at 5:51am · Like
  • Gina Cook I understand what you are shooting for Steve and I admire your passion. Those people you speak of that can’t believe in the Bible do so because of their rebellion against Him. No matter how much we suit their ideas/beliefs, it really comes down to God opening their eyes to their need for Him. I couldn’t believe in the Bible either when I was lost and had MANY arguments with others, but those people didn’t choose to appease me, I just had to come to the point of humility and the sobering truth that not all things are as they seem and that “with God, all things are possible.” Like God asked Job over and over, “were you there, do you know what I know, can you do what I do?”
    September 27 at 6:49am · Edited · Like · 4
  • Steve Ray Webb Gina Cook, I respectfully disagree. If you truly believed that the Bible had blatant irrefutable errors in it, would you accept it as God’s word? That is where some of these people stand. They truly believe there are errors and they have a good case to make if we try to teach scientists, for example, that the Earth is 6000 years old. Like it or not, we can place barriers to faith in front of people. It is a big part of our job as evangelists to remove those barriers. It is like Paul on Mars Hill trying to remove barriers to belief. That is part of my mission in writing on this subject. I don’t think Christians fully understand how much harm is being done to our witness to the world. It is genuine demonstrable damage for which we will answer to God.
    September 27 at 7:26am · Like
  • Robert Pristoop I can respect your view but I am convinced that God used old dirt to confound the scientist and every molecule change when Messiah was resurrected. We only know what we know today and not what God knew when he created.
    September 27 at 8:00am · Like
  • Steve Ray Webb Robert Pristoop, I believe just the opposite, that the whole of Creation was meant to display God’s glory and the more we understand it the more we have an appreciation of His greatness and majesty. Creation, in a sense, is seeing a part of God. I also believe it would be out of God’s character to intentionally deceive us as we study His creation. I believe Rom. 1:20 holds great meaning when it says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).
    September 27 at 8:10am · Like · 1
  • Robert Pristoop Steve Ray Webb hence the smily face at the end of what I wrote.
    September 27 at 8:12am · Like · 1
  • Evan Plante I do not believe that God would obfuscate either his general revelation or his special revelation. He is, after all, in the communications business.
    September 27 at 8:39am · Like · 3
  • Robert Pristoop Whew! I thought that I had come across a geologist that didn’t have a sense of humor! Horrors of horrors!
    September 27 at 9:08am · Like · 3
  • Ed Chait I agree with Gina. Steve, you stated at the beginning of your post that you have been a believer since your youth. I believe that Gina and I were saved later in life and we may have more personal experience with what the nonbeliever’s mindset is. It’s not that they can’t believe in God because of a perceived inconsistency or Biblical difficulty, it’s because they don’t *want* to believe in God and need to find an excuse to validate their nonbelief.

    Rom 1:21
    For although they KNEW God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (my emphasis)
    September 27 at 11:03am · Like · 3
  • Sarah Van Baale Steve, when you write “That is part of my mission in writing on this subject. I don’t think Christians fully understand how much harm is being done to our witness to the world. It is genuine demonstrable damage for which we will answer to God.” are you implying that by believing in a young earth or giving solid criticism to radiometric dating that we are harmful witnesses? Because that is an extremely strong statement to be made based upon a scientific method that is less than 100 years old and has proven faults.

    Your passion for your work is commendable. And I’m not doubting your faith either. I’m simply HIGHLY concerned that you go on to be exceedingly disparaging of other Christian scientists who disagree with you scientifically – to the point attacking their witness or perhaps even their faith. The age of the earth isn’t a salvation issue. We can all agree that what matters is a personal relationship with Christ. Radiometric dating (however accurate or fallible) doesn’t save someone or ‘lose’ someone. Salvation is an issue concerning the condition of a person’s heart not the knowledge in their head.
    September 27 at 11:35am · Like · 3
  • Corpuz Valdemor Avellaneda Ramil They don’t believe because they are not His sheep.
    September 27 at 4:52pm · Like · 2
  • Steve Ray Webb Sarah Van Baale, back on line again after a good nights sleep. Yes, I am definitely saying that arguing for a young earth is harming the faith of some people. A good 99% or so of unbelieving scientists (not just geologists) and a high percentage of unbelieving college educated people will immediately dismiss someone as irrelevant who talks young earth. Discussion over. You have lost your audience and any chance for witnessing. This is a dangerous topic when treated improperly. We need to be preparing the ground in a person’s heart (what Francis Schaeffer calls pre-evangelism) so that the gospel seed can be planted and begin to grow.
    September 27 at 7:38pm · Like · 1
  • Alyson Dreyer I think believing that we understand more than God’s Word reveals is dangerous. Satan still controls this planet and he creates lies to keep us from believing that God meant exactly what he said. “Did God really say he created in six days?” said the serpent to Eve.
    September 27 at 7:51pm · Like · 2
  • Sarah Van Baale You and I will have to respectfully and full-heartedly disagree. You can make the same argument about the virgin Mary. Science doesn’t support it, yet it happened. Does that harm their faith? According to your scientific assessment it would. Sometimes the things of God don’t fit into our nice neat little boxes of understanding. But to call out other Christians as being poor witnesses simply because they do not buy into the “mainstream” opinion regarding radiometric dating (even though some of us fully understand it) is wrong of you. The age of the earth is not settled. It is not fact; it is opinion. We disagree on opinion but yet you disparage me? You have no biblical ground to do so, yet you press on. If you also concede that believing in the virgin birth is as opposed to science as a young earth, then at least you’ll be consistent. God may judge me for not buying into the reliability of radiometric dating (as you mentioned above) but for you to stand in judgement of me, is flat out wrong.
    September 27 at 7:53pm · Edited · Like · 3
  • Steve Ray Webb Sarah Van Baale, many scientists and educated people are receptive to the idea that miracles can happen as in the case of the virgin birth. That is not the same as making pseudo-scientific arguments that the earth is 6000 years old. That is taking the Bible out of the realm of spiritual discussion and into the realm of science and these people know that the evidence is entirely stacked on the side of an old earth from a physical data standpoint. In other words, you are not asking them to believe in a miracle, you are asking them to believe in bad science.
    September 27 at 8:05pm · Like
  • Sarah Van Baale Steve – I’m pretty sure that how the earth was created falls into the “miracle” realm. The difference between you and I is that you stand in judgement of all who believe in a young earth. Elevating the issue by saying those who believe in a young earth are sinning and will stand in judgement before God is wrong. I contend, the age of the earth is not settled. The science behind radiometric dating is not conclusive and actually has many flaws. I don’t claim to know how God created the earth or how much age was built in. I really don’t understand a lot about how God created this world even though I have a graduate degree in science. I love science. I love God. But I don’t stand in judgement of other believers who disagree with me on the age of the earth. It is not as important an issue as you are making it out to be – and yes, I have worked with and witnessed to many other scientists. Even so, if I concede that you are much smarter than me, make more money, have more publications, and fervently believe that your science speaks truth, I don’t answer to you. I do answer to God, just as you do. To step up on a pedestal and proclaim that we are leading others astray (aka sinning), is an attempt to usurp authority God has not given you. It is one thing to believe fervently in an old earth, it is another to condemn those who don’t. You’ve gone too far.
    September 27 at 8:24pm · Edited · Like · 2
  • Steve Ray Webb Sarah Van Baale, I am not in the slightest claiming to be smarter than you but more than likely I have worked this issue longer and harder. The Bible does not say that the Earth is 6000 years old. The simplest explanation of Scripture can certainly lead a person in that direction but all of us know that the simplest answer is not always the right answer (I have some great quotes from C.S. Lewis in that regard). And I have taken the time to show that other Scriptural conclusions are possible. Any time that we go beyond what the Bible explicitly teaches we have to tread gently and carefully, knowing that our words are not inspired, and particularly if we see that our interpretation has some potential serious downside. Our interpretation of Scripture is not the same as Scripture. There is such a thing as good theology and bad theology. Further words come to mind but I see that it is time for me to head to church and get my mind on other things. Blessings!
    September 27 at 8:58pm · Like · 1
  • Sarah Van Baale The case can be made that the Bible does say it is around 6000 years old. But, even so, the Bible most definitely does not say that it is millions of years old. However, my issue with what you have written actually isn’t about the age of the earth. It is your condemnation of those who do not agree with you. I’m not making posts about a “young earth” and passing judgement on those who do not agree with me. In fact, I still allege that the age of the earth is not a salvation issue as you are suggesting. No matter your experience nor your intellect, you do not have the authority to condemn others who disagree with your opinion in this matter. You wrote above “Any time that we go beyond what the Bible explicitly teaches we have to tread gently and carefully, knowing that our words are not inspired, and particularly if we see that our interpretation has some potential serious downside. Our interpretation of Scripture is not the same as Scripture.” however, that is exactly what you are doing. By condemning those who hold a young earth viewpoint based upon your extra-biblical science is “going beyond what the Bible teaches” and making it into a salvation issue. No matter how you spin it, believing in an old earth is not part of the pathway to salvation just as believing in a young earth is not a deterrent from it.
    September 27 at 9:24pm · Like · 2
  • Steve Ray Webb Sarah Van Baale, to make myself more clearly understood, as I think you have taken me a bit out of context, is that a dogmatic position on age of the earth being 6000 years is potentially harmful depending on your audience. I stand behind that statement. It can be a direct barrier to belief and I am not exaggerating when I say that I personally know people who are exactly in the position of doubting the veracity of Scripture because they think it has blatant errors in it, a 6000 year earth being a big hitter in that regard. Why put unbelievers unnecessarily in that position? And as far as your first sentence saying that “the case can be made that the Bible does say it is around 6000 years old.” Of course, a case can be made for it. But is that case the correct one? Or is the case I made the correct one? In either instance the Bible nowhere says that the earth is 6000 years old. It is a deduction that is being made, however you choose to make it, and human deductions are far from being infallible. One of the serious errors that young earthers tend to make is that they just assume their interpretation of Genesis is the correct one and that everyone should fall in line with it. I do not assume it is the correct one.
    Yesterday at 2:23am · Like · 2
  • Evan Plante Talk about timely stuff! The question that I’m working on now is from such a person as Steve Ray Webb (my new best friend) describes: he has a Christian wife and he loves her faith, but he can’t get by the age of the earth, etc. IMO, there’s nothing to get by…so, pray for me. I’m submitting my answer in about an hour…and GQ would have every right fire me as a result.
    Yesterday at 7:20am · Edited · Like
  • Daniel Pasono Steve, I agree, it would be nice if we could package the Bible’s message in a neat little scientific box and have all of the educated people conclude that Christianity is simply a logical faith to follow. But our path requires faith. If nonbelievers couldn’t stumble over the young earth concept then they’d stumble over the flood. And if not the flood, then the parting of the Red Sea. Etc. If nonbelievers really wanted to understand the god concept, then they’d put the age of the earth into the box label “I don’t understand this” (much like the trinity) and continue their research. But if they quit at the first stumbling block, then they aren’t truly seriously trying to learn about God. The fact that within Christianity we disagree on the topic should not be a show stopper for them, if they were serious. Heck, churches have divided over the pews verses chairs topic. We disagree on many non-salvation topics. Internal disagreement within Christianity on any given topic isn’t a valid reason for a nonbeliever to stop seeking God; but I agree, it is an excuse they use.
    Yesterday at 8:13am · Like · 2
  • Shea Houdmann Allow me to weigh in, briefly. While I definitely lean young earth, and I have serious doubts about the objectiveness of the atheistic scientists who rule scientific academia, I do not have serious objections to old earth creationism / progressive creationism. However, I totally reject the claim that people are rejecting Christ due to young earth creationism. People may be using that as an excuse, but that is not the real reason. People reject Christ because their hearts are hard and their eyes are blind. Even if every Christian in the world embraced the 15 billion year age of the universe and the whatever million year age of the earth, these people would simply find some other excuse for rejecting Christ.
    Yesterday at 8:17am · Edited · Like · 8
  • Corpuz Valdemor Avellaneda Ramil Amen. People don’t believe NOT because of Young Earth creationism but because they are dead in their sins.
    Yesterday at 8:19am · Like · 4
  • Evan Plante Shea Houdmann‘s point is well taken. There are many “stated” objections to Christianity, but only one actual reason for refusing to “come.”
    Yesterday at 8:34am · Edited · Like · 1
  • Steve Ray Webb I find the view that people who are rejecting the gospel are going to reject it upon any grounds whatsoever to be disturbing and I highly disagree with it. It means that there is no place for apologetics in our faith (on top of wasting a lot of my time at Liberty Univ.). It means that passages like 1 Peter 3:15-16, which read … “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” are maybe nice for our own faith strengthening but they really have no impact on a person coming to the faith. It means that Paul was pretty much wasting his time on Mars Hill talking to the Greeks. It means that when I assure fellow scientists that some of their misgivings are ill-founded that I am wasting my time. Need I go on? In my experience, people who come to the faith very often do it by one step at a time with many of those steps involving the removal of barriers to faith. Not everyone comes to the Lord via a lighting flash Billy Graham walking the aisle experience. Have you yourself, not read of such people? I certainly have. The removal of barriers to faith is part and parcel of the conversion experience for countless people.
    Yesterday at 8:37am · Like · 1
  • Alyson Dreyer Unbelief is a matter of a hard heart. God gives the life spans from Adam through Abraham and beyond, even til Jesus’ day. Young earth ideas come from believing that God knew these men’s ages.
    Yesterday at 12:53pm · Like · 1
  • Sarah Van Baale There will always be barriers to belief. Sometimes it is faulty science, not bad theology. I have a genius uncle. He was the youngest MD to ever graduate from Northwestern University. He is “so smart” he has a hard time believing in God at all because the Bible doesn’t support all of the science he “knows” is true – he remains a fervent unbeliever (and a very skilled doctor). But it is a very dangerous path to stand on man-made scientific belief and then try to reconcile the Bible to what we as men “know” to be true. We cannot appease people by conforming the Word of God to man made ideas. There are many barriers to faith. The love of money is one often mentioned in the Bible. Are we responsible for removing that barrier for others? Your passion for what you believe is perfectly acceptable. Condemning other Christians for not agreeing with you on both scientific and biblical grounds because you claim we are erecting “barriers” for the faith is still wrong – no matter how many articles you post, or how much talking you do, or how much you truly believe what you say. It is the act of condemnation, not the old earth view, that I take great offense with. You are entitled to your scientific viewpoint, but you do not have the spiritual authority to condemn those with whom you don’t agree on this issue.
    Yesterday at 2:05pm · Like · 2
  • Gina Cook I guess then it’s defining what those barriers actually are and why they are really there Steve. No one argues that there aren’t any barriers to faith but its the defining the what and why of those barriers where we seem to disagree. I admire your intelligence Steve and no doubt you’ve put a lot of thought and work into your conclusions. Sarah said it well I believe when she said, ” But it is a very dangerous path to stand on man-made scientific belief and then try to reconcile the Bible to what we as men “know” to be true. We cannot appease people by conforming the Word of God to man made ideas.”
    Yesterday at 2:27pm · Like · 1
  • Ed Chait I think we are giving ourselves way too much credit when we believe that someone’s salvation depends on us in any way, shape or form. In His love, God chose those who would be saved before the foundation of the world. We do not choose God, He chooses us.

    John 15:16
    You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

    Matt 25:34
    Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
    Yesterday at 2:44pm · Like · 3
  • Shea Houdmann Steve, you misunderstood my post completely. I agree with you that YEC is a stumbling block for many scientists. I am entirely grateful for the intelligent design and old earth creationism arguments that can be employed to point the scientifically minded to faith in Jesus Christ. But, what I reject is the idea that it is somehow the fault of YECs if a scientist rejects the faith. Again, people reject the faith because of hardened hearts and blinded eyes. I have engaged in debate/dialogue with scientists before, and in a few of those conversations, YEC was a problem. Here is how I responded: “I do not know how old the universe or the earth are. The Bible does not explicitly say how old the universe or the earth are. But, whether the earth is young or old, the overall Christian worldview and the Gospel of Jesus Christ are the same. So, let’s put aside an issue that neither of us can be absolutely certain about and instead focus on what the Bible is explicitly clear about – everyone’s need for Jesus Christ as Savior.”
    22 hrs · Like · 6
  • Shea Houdmann All, I think it is time to end this discussion. Clearly, YEC vs OEC is something we can agree to disagree on and still love one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. Please remember that the purpose of this group is to encourage one another. Respectful disagreement can be edifying, but clearly that is no longer happening in this discussion.
    22 hrs · Like · 6
  • Wendyl Leslie Thank you, Shea!
    21 hrs · Like
  • Jed Kramer Shea Houdmann, I appreciate what you said in your last two posts. We all clearly want unbelievers to come into a saving relationship with Christ. We all also are passionate about God’s Word. Rather than determining who is “right” in this discussion, let’s find something that we can all take away in order to better represent God and Scripture to those who are unsaved. For me, I will acknowledge to any unbeliever who raises a disputable scientific matter that the purpose of the Bible is not to explain science. (this is not to say that the Bible contains scientific errors) I will admit that there are knowledgeable Christians who disagree on the interpretation of some passages. (we seek accurate interpretation but will not judge others whose interpretations on non-essential matters vary from ours) I will then explain that a central purpose of the Bible is to illuminate God’s relationship to mankind throughout our existence and into eternity, and most importantly, John 3:16. I will then attempt to get to the heart of where they are in relation to God and invite them into a personal and eternal relationship with Him. I hope and believe that most of you are able to agree with me on these items.
    19 hrs · Like · 3

Team GotQuestions Blog

a Blog for Sharing Stories, Tips & Encouragement