Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2017 5:15 AM
424 online now:
AdminAsgara (Asgara), dwise1, PaulK, Rrhain, Tangle (5 members, 419 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,983 Year: 6,589/21,208 Month: 2,350/2,634 Week: 13/525 Day: 13/11 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   How the NT quotes Tanach texts
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 16 of 61 (717756)
01-31-2014 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
01-31-2014 3:33 AM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
Faith writes:

The miraculous context is the future prophetic context and "Immanuel" in that context refers to its meaning, "God with us," which is a description of Messiah.


"Context" means "within the text". Outside sources such as the New Testament are not context. Even if they correctly explicate the text, they are not context.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 01-31-2014 3:33 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-01-2014 9:43 PM ringo has responded

  
ded2daworld
Junior Member (Idle past 1059 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 01-30-2014


Message 17 of 61 (717765)
01-31-2014 3:10 PM


So the old testament is saying "Behold! LOOK! Be amazed!" a young woman shall concieve and give birth.

Really? They were surprised or astouinded or asked to take special notice of one of the most common things in the world - that a young woman gets preggers?
That's what faith was saying about the context strongly indicates virgin. Even if it doesn't the NT is clear that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. -That's kinda why it was called a miracle.


Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2014 4:05 PM ded2daworld has not yet responded
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-31-2014 4:54 PM ded2daworld has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Tangle, posted 02-12-2014 4:24 AM ded2daworld has not yet responded

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3012
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 18 of 61 (717767)
01-31-2014 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
01-30-2014 3:30 AM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
No, Almah was never used to be Virgin. It did not say that it was not virgin, but never referred to sexual purity at all. . It means 'a young girl/woman of marriageable age'.

And, no, God did not inspire the NT authors at all. NO more than God inspired Joseph Smith or Mohammed.

As for 'how blind the Pharisees were.. well, all that means is that the writers of the N.T. were angry at the Pharisees , because they were kicked out from worshiping with them, since their belief system had become heretical

Almah never referred to 'only a virgin'. In the Song of Solomon, almah is used in a very distinctly sexual situation, where it is most definitely NOT a virgin.

I really like how these fundamentalist Christians think they know Hebrew and the Jewish faith better than Jews.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 01-30-2014 3:30 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 02-01-2014 3:03 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3012
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 19 of 61 (717768)
01-31-2014 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Eliyahu
01-30-2014 3:07 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
Not quite. The term translated in the Greek is Parthenos, which quite often meant young woman, but sometimes meant Virgin. There was a shift in translation and meaning over the centuries

We have examples of the term parthenos being used for people who were most certainly not virgins.. but the term changed meanings by the 1st century c.e.

This indicates that the author of the Gospel of Mathew was reading the Greek, not to the Hebrew.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Eliyahu, posted 01-30-2014 3:07 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 20 of 61 (717770)
01-31-2014 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ded2daworld
01-31-2014 3:10 PM


No, it wasn't saying that at all. The next chapter has a perfectly ordinary birth used in just the same way. The birth is a time marker for the predicted events. That's why Faith's point was an ignorant mistake - it ignored the actual context.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ded2daworld, posted 01-31-2014 3:10 PM ded2daworld has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-01-2014 9:34 PM PaulK has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11176
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 21 of 61 (717773)
01-31-2014 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ded2daworld
01-31-2014 3:10 PM


So the old testament is saying "Behold! LOOK! Be amazed!" a young woman shall concieve and give birth.

No, it doesn't say that at all.

Basically, Isaiah's point is this:

"Before this girl's kid grows up, those kings you're afraid of will already be gone."

Really? They were surprised or astouinded or asked to take special notice of one of the most common things in the world - that a young woman gets preggers?

There's no astonishment mentioned at all. And the pregnancy is really beside the point, which is that it won't be long before the Lord takes care of the two kings that are teaming up against the House of David.

That's what faith was saying about the context strongly indicates virgin.

Her viginity is totally incidental to what Isaiah was talking about.

Here's the pertinant parts:

quote:
2 Now the house of David was told, Aram has allied itself with Ephraim; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.

...

13 Then Isaiah said, Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right,
16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.


ABE:

PaulK bring up a good point about the next chapter:

quote:
8 The Lord said to me, Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.
2 So I called in Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberekiah as reliable witnesses for me.
3 Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me, Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.
4 For before the boy knows how to say My father or My mother, the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria.

Again, its just a way to keep track of some timeframe. Before X, then Y. Where for X he's using the birth of a child.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ded2daworld, posted 01-31-2014 3:10 PM ded2daworld has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 22 of 61 (717777)
02-01-2014 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by ramoss
01-31-2014 3:25 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
Deleted.
Not worth it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ramoss, posted 01-31-2014 3:25 PM ramoss has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 23 of 61 (717792)
02-01-2014 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
01-30-2014 5:35 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
The idea of some future meaning also has problems. Why should we imagine that a part of the prophecy - and only part of it - has some additional meaning, unrelated to the remaining text of the prophecy?

Ill be helping my brother or sister Faith, here, in dismantling, the comical approach set out by secular fundamental humanists, in trying to argue from scripture, that scripture cannot have a meaning to the future

But as always Ill be doing it from a purely logical standpoint, which should quickly dismiss the nonesense, of people who do not believe in God or inspiration, that such things cannot apply

When you formulate an argument from or about scripture, you have to assume atleast the possibly, from an argument standpoint, that all its claims are valid, for it to make any sense

If you start from the proposition, that its claims to divine guidance and inspiration are not true, then there is no reason to be concerned whether the writer meant, virgin or young women

The meaning is going to be missed by the Secular fundamentalist humanist

So which is it, is it inspired or not?

I promise you Ill dismantle your misunderstanding as quickly as I did with Arch

Starting an argument in the middle of its content, (vigin or young women), is like trying to decide which flavor of cheese the moon is made of

You want to be logical and rational, please, have at it

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2014 5:35 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2014 12:28 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 24 of 61 (717795)
02-01-2014 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dawn Bertot
02-01-2014 11:40 AM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
quote:

Ill be helping my brother or sister Faith, here, in dismantling, the comical approach set out by secular fundamental humanists, in trying to argue from scripture, that scripture cannot have a meaning to the future

Fath is not an insane worshiper of Star Trek, and displaying your lunacy does nothing to help her.

quote:

But as always Ill be doing it from a purely logical standpoint, which should quickly dismiss the nonesense, of people who do not believe in God or inspiration, that such things cannot apply

As you've demonstrated here you have no understanding of logic. None.

A liar for Jesus is pathetic. A liar for Spock is even worse.

quote:

If you start from the proposition, that its claims to divine guidance and inspiration are not true, then there is no reason to be concerned whether the writer meant, virgin or young women

Wrong.

quote:

You want to be logical and rational, please, have at it

Certainly, Attempting to have a rational discussion with you is a complete waste of time. So go away.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-01-2014 11:40 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-01-2014 9:19 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 25 of 61 (717817)
02-01-2014 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
02-01-2014 12:28 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
As you've demonstrated here you have no understanding of logic. None.

A liar for Jesus is pathetic. A liar for Spock is even worse.

Temper temper PaulK, you only due harm to your position and give the impression you cannot defend your position

Or was that your motive to begin with, to avoid answering questions and arguments

As Ive demonstrated by more than three thousand posts, I have a very firm and clear understanding of reality and the issues involved

So Ill ask the question again, with no hope you will attempt an answer. Lets try anyway

Since the texts clearly claims inspiration and divine guidance from God himself, could this not affect the overall picture of prophecy

Since the writer is claiming divine guidance, could there not be a bigger picture across time concerning the meaning of these passages and who they would involve?

Since you assume the writer of the Old Testament is correct in what he trying to communicate, why should we not assume, the writer of the NT would be directed by the same divine guidance

If your position is strickly a humanistic, atheistic approach to the meaning of the writers words why or how could it matter

Now, here are some questions for you to deal with, so lets see how much I dont really understand

Be a man now PaulK, dont shrink from your obligations. Step up to the plate, be a grown up

As i told you earlier, there is no task in showing the silliness of a secular fundamentalist, trying to defend, understand or explain, scripture, muchless prophecy

PaulK writes

So go away.

Youve heard the expression, "Get behind me Satan". Come on Lucipher, you can do better than that

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2014 12:28 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 26 of 61 (717819)
02-01-2014 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
01-31-2014 4:05 PM


PaulK writes
That's why Faith's point was an ignorant mistake - it ignored the actual context.

Unbelievable

These are the kind of statements that make you a filthy, unobjective, intellectually dishonest liar. There is no one that ignores the entirity of the context more than a secular fundamental humanist. You pretend that you believe or understand, what the writer is trying to communicate, then blatently ignore and deny any claim to the miraculous, divine guidance.

You do understand the willful stupidity and blatant arrogance for assuming such an alledged, misguided evaluation on Faiths part, correct

Im sorry PaulK, please tell me again, who does not understand sound reasoning. Your ignorance of such things is either willful or you really are that silly

Do you really think you can dismiss the NTs and Christians claims to fulfilled prophecy without understanding and starting with simple sound reasoning

Come now PaulK you can do much better than that

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2014 4:05 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2014 3:20 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2014 1:46 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 27 of 61 (717821)
02-01-2014 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ringo
01-31-2014 11:27 AM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
"Context" means "within the text". Outside sources such as the New Testament are not context. Even if they correctly explicate the text, they are not context.

So your unwarrented and unreasonable rejection of the miraculous that is clearly a part of the 'Virgin', text we can dismiss as, Not in Context , correct

Since we can reject your non-context views, then we can assume the miraculous in the context is acceptable, believable and accurate, correct

Oh Im sorry, did I speak of turn and assume that you do not accept the miraculous, when you actually do?

Man I tell you what, it sure would help from an argumentation standpoint, to know what you fellas believe about these things. You see, this would make it much simpler to argue a position from an actual rational standpoint

Or is that simply a sloppy debating tactic, to keep someone in the dark concerning your actual views, to further confuse the issues?

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 01-31-2014 11:27 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 02-02-2014 1:16 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 44 by ramoss, posted 02-04-2014 10:48 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 28 of 61 (717823)
02-01-2014 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eliyahu
01-29-2014 1:58 AM


So here we see that Matthew claims that this text comes from Jeremiah, when in truth, it comes from Zechariah.
Another slip up of the New Testament which is supposedly divinely inspired.

Hardly. Actually this is an example of divine guidance. Just like the writers of the NT record some of the same events, and some writers refer to others writing, like Peter did with Paul,Jerimiah probably spoke the same truth to others and Zachariah actually recorded it. Or some Jermiahs witings were misplaced.

Since historical finds tend always to corroborate old and NT claims, if a writing that claimed to be from Jerimiah surfaced, would you then convert to Christianity? Or would you simply just look for other minor, alledged problems?

The point is that if you dont start with the plain claim to inspiration, you can believe what ever you wish

The point is also, that only inspiration could make known to Matthew who actually made the statement

The same inspiration that revealed to any of the prophets divine truth, could only make it known to a bunch uneducated fisherman, tax collectors and otherwise disinterested people, like the disciples, that these things refered to Christ.

Seriously, why would a bunch of disinterested people, with little or no imagination, place themselves in a position of death, just to create a new story that would literally cost them thier lives

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eliyahu, posted 01-29-2014 1:58 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Eliyahu, posted 02-02-2014 12:36 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 157 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 29 of 61 (717830)
02-02-2014 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dawn Bertot
02-01-2014 10:15 PM


Hardly. Actually this is an example of divine guidance. Just like the writers of the NT record some of the same events, and some writers refer to others writing, like Peter did with Paul,Jerimiah probably spoke the same truth to others and Zachariah actually recorded it. Or some Jermiahs witings were misplaced.

Bs'd

An assumption without the slightest proof.

The facts are: The quoted text is from Zechariah, and not from Jeremiah.

Since historical finds tend always to corroborate old and NT claims, if a writing that claimed to be from Jerimiah surfaced, would you then convert to Christianity?

Then I would not use the argument anymore that the NT writers were an-alphabetic ignoramuses who couldn't point out the right prophet.

But since that is not going to pop up, that fact keeps on standing.

The same inspiration that revealed to any of the prophets divine truth, could only make it known to a bunch uneducated fisherman, tax collectors and otherwise disinterested people, like the disciples, that these things refered to Christ.

Seriously, why would a bunch of disinterested people, with little or no imagination, place themselves in a position of death, just to create a new story that would literally cost them thier lives

Maybe because they had been bamboozled into believing something that was a hoax?

Maybe they didn't, but maybe the gospels were compiled long after the events had come to pass.

Why do Muslims kill themselves for their false religion?

People do weird things. And who can, with the limited tools of logic, probe the debts of the human mind?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-01-2014 10:15 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 157 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 30 of 61 (717831)
02-02-2014 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
01-30-2014 4:46 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
Within the original context, yes, ABE: but the word is ambiguous no doubt because it has two references, an immediate and a future

Bs'd

And of course, when you randomly take Tanach texts which have no bearing on the messiah, and rip them out of context, and then mistranslate them, and then say they are messianic prophecies, then you can make everybody you want the messiah, whether it is Napoleon Bonaparte, Barak Obama, David Koresh, or the rooster of Moshe:

A Chassidic Rabbi Makes a Startling Discovery

My name is Moshe and I am a Chassidic Jew who has, from my youth, learned the words of our Holy Prophets, and has been puzzled by their meaning.
Then, on the day before Yom Kippur, I contemplated the solemnity of the day and was made aware of the amazing meaning of G-d's words. I recognized the fulfillment of 42 Messianic prophecies of the Tenach, and they changed my life forever.

1. Early in the morning I went to get my rooster to fulfill the ancient custom. There in the light I looked into his eyes and saw fulfilled the words, 'I am the rooster* who has seen affliction.' (Lam. 3:1)

2. I took him and swung him around my head as the verse says, 'And he circled his head**.' (Lam 3:5)

3. I moved my hands as I swirled him, as it says, 'Only against me did he turn his hand.' (Lam 3:3)

4. With this he leaped from my hand and started to run. As it says, 'They have run away without seeing good.' (Job 9:25)

5. I cried a short pray to HaShem as it says, 'My words I say out of the bitterness of my soul.' (Job 10:1)

6. He ran from me, fulfilling the verse, 'To me they showed their back and not their face.' (Jer. 32:33)

7/8. I borrowed a cane from a man near me so as to catch him with the rounded edge, as the verse says, 'And Moshe took the stick.' (Ex. 4:20, Num 20:8)

9/10. I tried to catch him with the hook, but only the blows of the cane hit his back as it says, 'Afflicted by the rod of his anger.' (Lam. 3:1 and it also says, 'I struck you with the blows of an enemy.' (Jer. 30:12)

11. He turned to me and I got him right on the cheek fulfilling the verse, 'I have offered my cheek to the one who strikes me.' (Lam. 3:30)

12. He ran from me into a dark corner and I followed after him, as the verse says, 'He has led me and driven me into the darkness and not light.'
(Lam. 3:2)

13. I had him there in the corner as it says; 'All her pursuers overtook her in the small place.' (Lam. 1:3)

14. He stood there silent, as he had been to this time in fulfillment of the words of the prophet, 'He was persecuted and afflicted, be he did not open his mouth.' (Is. 53:7)

15. In that corner there was just nowhere for him to hide from me as the verse says, 'Can a person hide in a concealed place, and I should not see him?' (Jer. 23:25)

16. He was now trapped as the verse says, 'He has walled me in so I cannot escape.' (Lam. 3:7)

17. In his eyes I could see him praying silently to HaShem, 'My G-d my G-d why have you forsaken me?' (Psalm 22:1)

18. Clearly it was fulfilled for him, 'The mighty ones of Bashan encircle me.' (Psalm 22:13)

19. I grabbed him and he started to call out to HaShem.
As the verse says, 'My G-d, I call to you by day and you do not answer and by night and there is no respite.' (Psalm 22:3)

20. But there was no answer as it says, 'Though I would scream out and plead he shut out my prayer.' (Lam. 3:8)

21. It was clearly the end. I grabbed him and took my place in the line waiting to give my rooster to the shochet (ritual slaughterer.) He was silent, 'Like a sheep being led to the slaughter or a ewe to her sharers he did not open his mouth.' (Is. 53:7)

22. The shochet took him by the neck as it says; 'He grasped me by the neck.' (Job 16:12)

23. With that he screamed out, 'Be not far from me because distress is near and there is none to help me.' (Psalm 22:12)

24. He also said, 'Save my soul from the sword.' (Psalm 22:21)

25. He slaughtered him fulfilling 'He was removed from the living land.' (Is. 53:8)

26. He let the blood fall on the floor, as it says, 'I am poured out like water.' (Psalm 22:15)

27. I took the dead chicken and gazed at it as the prophet says, 'They have looked upon me whom they have pierced.' (Zech 12:10)

28/29. I took it to be made kosher. We separated it into pieces snapping it's bones as the verses say, 'All my bones became disjointed.' (Psalm 22:15) 'He has broken my bones.' (Lam 3:4)

30. Then I took him home to cook. My wife removed the skin as it says, 'He has worn away my flesh and skin.' (Lam. 3:4)

31. She placed him in a pot with water, as it says, 'For the waters have reached unto my soul.' (Psalm 69:2)

32. She added many spices as it says, 'And she gave ...many spices.' (1 Kings 10:10)

33. She covered up the pot so it could cook as it says; 'He has placed me in darkness.' (Lam 3:6)

34. The smell of it filled the room as it says, 'That the spices may flow out.' (Song 4:16)

35. After that it was served on the table and we gazed upon it as the verse says, 'I count my bones and they gaze and look upon me.' (Psalm 22:18)

36. He was divided among the members of my family, as it says, 'Therefore I will divide him among the many.' (Is. 53:12)

37/38. We rejoiced and sang as we ate him, as it says, 'I have become a thing of laughter for my people, they sing all day long.' (Lam. 3:14) 'In him our hearts were joyful.' (Psalm 33:21)

39/40/41. After which we were full and praised G-d as it says, 'You shall eat and be satisfied and praise HaShem your G-d.' (Deut. 6:11,8:10,11:15).

42. We truly saw the goodness of G-d as it say, 'You should taste and see that HaShem is good.' (Psalm 34:9)

There were many more messianic prophecies that I could have added that applied to my messianic rooster. Many more he will fulfill when he comes back.

In all seriousness the above example is no different then the lists claiming 200/300/400 prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. They claim the odds against a single person fulfilling them are astronomical. Or of their claims that passages like Psalms 22, or Isaiah 53 are about their messiah/god. Consider this well when you see or hear the claims made by missionaries or just simple Christians who you may meet. If not there may be a prophecy that does really apply: 'They are a people bereft of council and they don't have understanding.'

* In Hebrew the word 'gever' means both 'man' and 'rooster'berew
** In Hebrew the word is resh aleph shin, which can be read as 'rosh' head'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 01-30-2014 4:46 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2014 1:11 AM Eliyahu has responded

    
Prev1
2
345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017