Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1996 of 2241 (748594)
01-27-2015 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1977 by Faith
01-27-2015 3:13 AM


Re: Ask Yourself
Faith writes:
I DO feel we have an obligation to do our best to convince people of the gospel, that's our most basic calling as Christians.
Behaving in a Christian manner toward others is a fairly "basic calling" of Christianity, wouldn't you say? You can start any time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1977 by Faith, posted 01-27-2015 3:13 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1997 of 2241 (748595)
01-27-2015 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1974 by Golffly
01-26-2015 8:47 PM


There are some threads in the 'Accuracy' forum where we've vetted some inconsistencies with some discussion with defenders of inerrancy.
In most cases, proponents won't acknowledge any deviation from the purest accuracy. Faith has already deviated from this position by a bit.
On the other hand, I agree with Faith about the piddly nature of most of the last few inconsistencies pointed out here. In most cases it is not even clear that there is an error. I think an inconsistency should either be substantial to Christianity or require substantial twisting to resolve as not an error.
For example, while I agree that two is not seven, I don't have much problem with God providing broad outlines in a first talk with Noah and additional detail later on. So what's the point? Is that anywhere near as hard as believing a global flood occurred a few thousand years ago?
On the other hand, I've always been bothered by the description of Paul's men sometimes hearing and other times not hearing Jesus voice. In my view, someone erred, but the error is of no consequence.
And there are, of course a number of non-denial errors in the Bible. Judas death and burial is inconsistently described in different ways that cannot be reconciled. There are also contradictions with Jacob's renaming as told in Genesis 32 and 35 and then not being called Israel in any consistent manner afterwards. Did the choice of punishments God offered David include 7 years of famine (2 Samuel 24:13) or just 3 years of famine (1 Chronicles 21)? Was David put up to the evil deed to "number Israel" by God or by Satan as described variously in those two accounts that resulted in the punishment?
In my opinion, those discrepancies are impossible to reconcile into not being fairly substantial errors.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : Edit Bible reference

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1974 by Golffly, posted 01-26-2015 8:47 PM Golffly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1999 by Golffly, posted 01-27-2015 10:03 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 2001 by Percy, posted 01-27-2015 10:45 AM NoNukes has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1998 of 2241 (748597)
01-27-2015 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1993 by Golffly
01-27-2015 8:13 AM


voices
There are several approaches to critical analysis of the Bible that can only lead to understanding that it really is the product of many voices, many belief systems and lots and lots of errors and contradictions.
The methods vary and can be both painstaking and subject to interpretation but are not really very difficult. We did some on this very thread where pieces parts are compared. The two flood stories are a great example of textual criticism. Here are clearly two different stories simply based on what is actually written.
Genesis 1 versus Genesis 2&3 is another great and easily seen example. The stories of creation found in the two tales are mutually exclusive and the god described entirely different. We can see similar evolution in the Synoptic Gospels where Matthew and Luke seem to have been written using Mark and a second unknown and so far lost collection of sayings of Jesus called "Q". These are examples of Source Criticism. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 are the product of two entirely different eras and traditions designed to serve two different purposes.
There is another line of inquiry which is based on the earliest known documents that revolves around what language was used, what titles were used to describe god and other specific characteristics; how things were said rather than what was said.
Other lines of inquiry are based on facts on the ground. The floods never happened so those tales are mythology or mythos. Some stories refer to places or peoples that either did not exist at the time the story is set or were called something else at that time.
None of those things though detract from the worth or value of the Bible. But they do show that the Bible is not inerrant and that it is the product of many authors, editors, redactors, copy errors then sifted through the filter of committees designed and created to make a document that will be authoritative. Not all the committees agreed and so we have canons that vary from the Orthodox Samaritan Canon that says only those books that were canonized at the time of Jesus should be authoritative to the Ethiopian Long Canon that has over 80 books included.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin for ---> from

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1993 by Golffly, posted 01-27-2015 8:13 AM Golffly has not replied

  
Golffly
Member (Idle past 3081 days)
Posts: 287
Joined: 12-19-2014


Message 1999 of 2241 (748601)
01-27-2015 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1997 by NoNukes
01-27-2015 9:02 AM


nonukes writes:
On the other hand, I've always been bothered by the description of Paul's men sometimes hearing and other times not hearing Jesus voice. In my view, someone erred, but the error is of no consequence.
There are many opposite statements in the bible. Some are no consequence like what you mention here. But if the point is errancy, then it's significant.
Others are certainly important to a message purportedly given by the bible.
Judge or don't judge
Never angry/ eternally angry
Love god/Fear god/ there is no fear in love.
Righteous men/ never been a righteous man.
These are significant to the bible point, from a Christian perspective.
If Christians portray the bible one way, but statements in the bible can also say the opposite and display the opposite.. I think this is more important than 2=7 or voice/no voice.
But if obvious opposite contradictions can never be accepted, then the deeply religious are not really reading the bible but rather re-writing it in their head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1997 by NoNukes, posted 01-27-2015 9:02 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2000 by jar, posted 01-27-2015 10:33 AM Golffly has replied
 Message 2003 by NoNukes, posted 01-27-2015 11:48 AM Golffly has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 2000 of 2241 (748603)
01-27-2015 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1999 by Golffly
01-27-2015 10:03 AM


audience
Others are certainly important to a message purportedly given by the bible.
Judge or don't judge
Never angry/ eternally angry
Love god/Fear god/ there is no fear in love.
Righteous men/ never been a righteous man.
These are significant to the bible point, from a Christian perspective.
If Christians portray the bible one way, but statements in the bible can also say the opposite and display the opposite.. I think this is more important than 2=7 or voice/no voice.
But if obvious opposite contradictions can never be accepted, then the deeply religious are not really reading the bible but rather re-writing it in their head.
But this again is a problem of christian education and not a problem with the Bible stories themselves.
Let me present a section from a 1981 Pastoral Letter from The Rt. Rev. Bennett J. Sims, Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta that dealt with the attempt at that time to force Creationism into the classrooms in Georgia.
quote:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Legislation is pending before the Georgia State Legislature which calls for the public financing and teaching of Scientific Creationism as a counterunderstanding to Evolution, wherever the evolutionary view is taught in the public schools.
Scientific Creationism understands the cosmos and the world to have originated as the Bible describes the process in the opening chapters of Genesis.
The 74th Annual Council of the Diocese of Atlanta, in formal action on January 31, 1981, acted without a dissenting vote to oppose by resolution any action by the Georgia Legislature to impose the teaching of Scientific Creationism on the public school system. A copy of the resolution is attached to this Pastoral.
It seems important that the Episcopal Church in this diocese add to its brief resolution a statement of its own teaching. The office of Bishop is historically a teaching office, and I believe it is timely to offer instruction as to this Church's understanding of what has become a contested public issue.
To begin with creation is a fact. The world exists. We exist. Evolution is a theory. As a theory, evolution expresses human response to the fact of creation, since existence raises questions: how did creation come to be, and why?
The question of why is the deeper one. It takes us into the realm of value and purpose. This urgent inquiry is expressed in human history through religion and statements of faith. Christians cherish the Bible as the source book of appropriating the point and purpose of life. We regard the Bible as the Word of God, His revelation of Himself, the meaning of His work and the place of humanity in it.
The question of how is secondary, because human life has been lived heroically and to high purpose with the most primitive knowledge of the how of creation. Exploration of this secondary question is the work of science. Despite enormous scientific achievement, humanity continues to live with large uncertainty. Science, advancing on the question of how, will always raise as many questions as it answers. The stars of the exterior heavens beyond us and the subatomic structure of the interior deep beneath us beckon research as never before.
Religion and science are therefore distinguishable, but in some sense inseparable, because each is an enterprise, more or less, of every human being who asks why and how in dealing with existence. Religion and science interrelate as land and water, which are clearly not the same but need each other, since the land is the basin for all the waters of the earth and yet without the waters the land would be barren of the life inherent to its soil.
In the Bible the intermingling of why and how is evident, especially in the opening chapters of Genesis. There the majestic statements of God's action, its value and the place of humanity in it, use an orderly and sequential statement of method. The why of the divine work is carried in a primitive description of how the work was done.
But even here the distinction between religion and science is clear. In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier.
Here is a clear statement from a major Christian source that points out that there really are two different authors and stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 and that they came from different eras and cultures.
We need to remember that the stories found in Bibles were written for, meant for and created within the local culture of the authors age. They reflect how that author and the audience saw their relationship with god and with other peoples at that time. And those opinions and beliefs evolved and changed; were influenced by other cultures from Babylonian to Persian to Egyptian the the enlightenment of Greece and Rome.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1999 by Golffly, posted 01-27-2015 10:03 AM Golffly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2006 by Golffly, posted 01-27-2015 12:21 PM jar has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 2001 of 2241 (748605)
01-27-2015 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1997 by NoNukes
01-27-2015 9:02 AM


NoNukes writes:
For example, while I agree that two is not seven, I don't have much problem with God providing broad outlines in a first talk with Noah and additional detail later on. So what's the point? Is that anywhere near as hard as believing a global flood occurred a few thousand years ago?
If for the sake of discussion you want to grant Faith's assertions that the passages of one pair versus seven pair are two separate interactions between God and Noah at two different times and that you should ignore the other discrepancies and problems (Noah gathers the animals on two separate occasions? Twice from all over the world? The same animal kinds again?), then that's fine.
But the evidence shows the two passages to be different derivatives of a single older oral tradition, one modified to include the concept of clean versus unclean, the other without that modification. Both passages end with Noah doing as instructed, because that's the way the original single passage ended. Faith claims that clean versus unclean represents "necessary teaching that matters," and must therefore be inerrant. To many people, a difference of one and seven is just the type of obvious discrepancy one would look for to falsify claims of inerrancy.
I don't think I'm alone when I say that I'm not sure what to make of Faith's claims that only "necessary teaching that matters" is inerrant. I would think that a book can't be a little bit inerrant in the same way that one can't be a little bit pregnant. Claiming that only those parts that matter are inerrant while specifying which parts matter, all without any objective criteria, seems the height of fallacy.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1997 by NoNukes, posted 01-27-2015 9:02 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2002 by NoNukes, posted 01-27-2015 11:31 AM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 2002 of 2241 (748607)
01-27-2015 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 2001 by Percy
01-27-2015 10:45 AM


If for the sake of discussion you want to grant Faith's assertions that the passages of one pair versus seven pair are two separate interactions between God and Noah at two different times
I don't believe that two encompasses seven.
But the evidence shows the two passages to be different derivatives of a single older oral tradition, one modified to include the concept of clean versus unclean, the other without that modification
Why don't you present that evidence here so we can shine some light (or radiate some heat) on it? Faith has already asked you to do so. And even that does not rule out the possibility that God spoke to Noah multiple times using different levels of detail.
I don't think I'm alone when I say that I'm not sure what to make of Faith's claims that only "necessary teaching that matters" is inerrant.
I would suggest looking at discussion or references on what it means to be inerrant. You'll find that there is a spectrum of opinion on the issue, with some people admitting that errors exists, but that in each case the errors are inconsequential.
I don't agree with that position. Given that major events in the Old Testament are described with inaccuracy that dwarfs anything we've discussed here, I cannot conclude that all of the errors are of no consequence, particularly to someone who holds the position that if Genesis is wrong, God is lying.
Claiming that only those parts that matter are inerrant while specifying which parts matter, all without any objective criteria, seems the height of fallacy.
It is the criteria that should be criticized before labeling the result fallacy. Assuming there is an objective criteria. I would at best call it 'bad terminology', but if the ground has already been staked out, I'd instead direct my ire at the substance of the claims rather than their title.
As an important side issue, I'd also point out the difference between no objective criteria, and criteria which Faith cannot explain or even fully understand. For all of her tenacity to what she calls orthodoxy, it is clear that she's not the best representative here. She's simply the only representative we've got that is willing to participate.
Edited by NoNukes, : change a couple adjective to adverbs.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2001 by Percy, posted 01-27-2015 10:45 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2013 by Percy, posted 01-28-2015 5:56 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 2003 of 2241 (748609)
01-27-2015 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1999 by Golffly
01-27-2015 10:03 AM


Judge or don't judge
Never angry/ eternally angry
Love god/Fear god/ there is no fear in love.
Righteous men/ never been a righteous man.
Life is complicated. No proverb or witty saying is extendable to every situation. Haste makes waste. But the early bird gets the worm.
Early to bed early to rise... Up all night, sleep all day!

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1999 by Golffly, posted 01-27-2015 10:03 AM Golffly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2004 by ringo, posted 01-27-2015 11:52 AM NoNukes has not replied
 Message 2007 by Golffly, posted 01-27-2015 12:46 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2004 of 2241 (748610)
01-27-2015 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2003 by NoNukes
01-27-2015 11:48 AM


NoNukes writes:
Haste makes waste. But the early bird gets the worm.
Haste and timeliness are not the same thing.
NoNukes writes:
Early to bed early to rise... Up all night, sleep all day!
Those are both saying the same thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2003 by NoNukes, posted 01-27-2015 11:48 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
ooh-child
Member (Idle past 344 days)
Posts: 242
Joined: 04-10-2009


(1)
Message 2005 of 2241 (748611)
01-27-2015 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1977 by Faith
01-27-2015 3:13 AM


Re: Ask Yourself
I often wish I had the ability to defend it better but it's a tremendous study to learn all the supposed discrepancies and the orthodox understanding that resolves them. The reason to do it is to help those whose faith is challenged by such things, I feel bad for them and know God would reward helping them get back on track.
But as I said the study it would take is really more than I can handle, and as this discussion shows, even knowing how to resolve the discrepancies -- and the ones given here were really not discrepancies anyway, just willful misreadings -- doesn't convince those who are committed to finding fault with the Bible, which makes the effort doubly futile. Whether showing that there are resolutions could really help someone in this environment I don't know.
I DO feel we have an obligation to do our best to convince people of the gospel, that's our most basic calling as Christians.
If I'm reading you correctly Faith, you realize the study of biblical inerrancies & contradictions takes a lifetime of commitment, a tremendous undertaking you are just not able to do.
So you rely & depend on scholars you trust, knowing that they have taken the time to study all of the Bible over the course of decades. You must have faith that they have all the answers to support your position.
And we are to take your word for it, and stop bringing up all these pesky Bible quotes that seem to be contradictory - they have been all answered by someone, somewhere, who knows better than we.
But when it comes to the other side of this discussion site, evolution, you take the opposite position. Those of us who rely on experts in the field are ridiculed, and you scoff at all of the time & study scientists have put into understanding evolution & the role it plays in life on this planet.
Do you see your hypocrisy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1977 by Faith, posted 01-27-2015 3:13 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2009 by Faith, posted 01-27-2015 3:30 PM ooh-child has replied

  
Golffly
Member (Idle past 3081 days)
Posts: 287
Joined: 12-19-2014


Message 2006 of 2241 (748614)
01-27-2015 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2000 by jar
01-27-2015 10:33 AM


Re: audience
Jar writes:
But this again is a problem of christian education and not a problem with the Bible stories themselves.
I think it's problematic for both. The issue with cult Christian we'd agree on, I'd say.
But the bible is pretty poor for credibility.
Science can be said to disprove Genesis and Noah.
Things like exodus and conquest of Canaan are... suspect to didn't happen.
I think some of it is so absurd it can be outright dismissed.
Jesus is subject to some pretty weak outside the bible evidence and some pretty weak with the bible evidence.
That leaves kind of a puzzle in deciding what is myth and what might not be.
So if the bible say isn't exactly true but say points to a truth. There is some real detective work involved in that, and not much in terms of evidence a guy can use to support the "pointing".
Just my view

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2000 by jar, posted 01-27-2015 10:33 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2008 by jar, posted 01-27-2015 1:10 PM Golffly has not replied

  
Golffly
Member (Idle past 3081 days)
Posts: 287
Joined: 12-19-2014


Message 2007 of 2241 (748620)
01-27-2015 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 2003 by NoNukes
01-27-2015 11:48 AM


nonukes writes:
Life is complicated. No proverb or witty saying is extendable to every situation. Haste makes waste. But the early bird gets the worm.
Early to bed early to rise... Up all night, sleep all day!
It's not that simple. If say Lot is called a just and righteous man. And that high esteem is only reserved for two or three guys in the bible. What does that say about the bible and the terms " just and righteous"... they didn't have a better man on the planet than an incestuous father or the words are mostly meaninglessly used.
It's bad a lot of times by it's own doing and contradictions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2003 by NoNukes, posted 01-27-2015 11:48 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 2008 of 2241 (748625)
01-27-2015 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 2006 by Golffly
01-27-2015 12:21 PM


Re: audience
So if the bible say isn't exactly true but say points to a truth. There is some real detective work involved in that, and not much in terms of evidence a guy can use to support the "pointing".
"TRUTH" doesn't seem to be all that important or even useful. People worry way too much with trying to find some "TRUTH". Nor is it really important if there are not multiple sources for what really is important.
As I pointed out above, the stories found in the Bibles reflect the feeling and knowledge of the people during the period when the stories were written. They show how folk tried to relate to god and also to other people and the environment.
But we are not living in those times and have lots of additional data to draw upon that simply didn't exist back then.
People today face the same challenges as they did then, learning to interact with their fellow man and the environment. For some, there is also an additional desire and that is how to relate (not interact) with a deity. Christianity is one possible path in that endeavor but there are many other paths as well.
Again, the issue is one of education; that Christians need to be taught that it is a path; it is NOT "TRUTH" and lessons learned will depend on the current culture, idiom and era.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2006 by Golffly, posted 01-27-2015 12:21 PM Golffly has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2009 of 2241 (748639)
01-27-2015 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 2005 by ooh-child
01-27-2015 12:05 PM


Re: Ask Yourself
If I'm reading you correctly Faith, you realize the study of biblical inerrancies & contradictions takes a lifetime of commitment, a tremendous undertaking you are just not able to do.
So you rely & depend on scholars you trust, knowing that they have taken the time to study all of the Bible over the course of decades. You must have faith that they have all the answers to support your position.
In many cases I don't even have a position until I've read all the various ways a passage might be understood. I don't take any of it on faith, I have to make my own judgment in the end whether their explanation is convincing. Usually they agree with each other but occasionally there is disagreement.
And we are to take your word for it,
Well, it would be nice if once in a great while my knowledge and judgment counted for something around here. But I usually try to present the reasoning so that even the sourest of debunkers might be persuaded by it.
and stop bringing up all these pesky Bible quotes that seem to be contradictory - they have been all answered by someone, somewhere, who knows better than we.
That is really quite true, the arguments are pesky because so wrong while being stridently defended; the understanding here of the quotes presented is generally based in ignorance, bad methods of Bible interpretation, or in some cases even malice, though perhaps not even recognized by the malicious one.
But when it comes to the other side of this discussion site, evolution, you take the opposite position. Those of us who rely on experts in the field are ridiculed, and you scoff at all of the time & study scientists have put into understanding evolution & the role it plays in life on this planet.
Yes, I must confess I favor the scholars who support Biblical tradition and reject those who reinvented it all in the last couple hundred years, which of course, contrary to your statement, shows I distinguish between good and bad scholarship rather than favoring it wholesale in one case aqnd rejecting it in another. Evolution is likewise to be judged according to the orthodox reading of the Bible.
Do you see your hypocrisy?
No, I really don't, but I do see your need to find me guilty of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2005 by ooh-child, posted 01-27-2015 12:05 PM ooh-child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2010 by ooh-child, posted 01-27-2015 5:15 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 2012 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2015 1:09 AM Faith has not replied

  
ooh-child
Member (Idle past 344 days)
Posts: 242
Joined: 04-10-2009


Message 2010 of 2241 (748656)
01-27-2015 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2009 by Faith
01-27-2015 3:30 PM


Re: Ask Yourself
Evolution is likewise to be judged according to the orthodox reading of the Bible.
But, evolution isn't mentioned in the Bible. How do you examine everything according to the Bible, when so much that affects us today wasn't even imagined during biblical times?
You trust scholars to inform you of the truth of the Bible, and we are to never question it. We trust scholars to inform us of the truth of evolution, and yet you feel free to question & even in some cases insult us for it. I still think your hypocrisy is showing, and you do nothing to reconcile your problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2009 by Faith, posted 01-27-2015 3:30 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2011 by NoNukes, posted 01-27-2015 7:27 PM ooh-child has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024