Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 1:47 AM
435 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), NoNukes (3 members, 432 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,960 Year: 6,566/21,208 Month: 2,327/2,634 Week: 515/572 Day: 1/61 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
15161718Next
Author Topic:   Creation
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 196 of 257 (783761)
05-08-2016 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
05-08-2016 1:19 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Faith writes:

Especially since I know nothing about Hebrew. If I have to consider the Hebrew I'm going to trust more seasoned theologians than anybody at EvC.

i'd suggest looking to rashi; he almost certainly knows hebrew since he wrote in hebrew.

As for dismissing your argument, I also dismiss jar's, because both are basically the interpretations of a single person and seem to be imposing modern assumptions about how we would write history on the ancient writers.

the P account is written in a pseudo-historical style (mostly grouped that way because the rest of P is largely concerned with history). the J account is not a history at all.

this isn't based on how modern writers would write histories; it's based on comparisons to ancient historians. and it's a question of genre and style, not contents or accuracy.

I just saw that arach has two stories and two different Gods so of course I'm going to dismiss his argument too.

P almost certainly intends to talk about the same god as J, and that is yahweh, the god of abraham/isaac/jacob. but P and J characterize that god very differently. P doesn't actually use the name "yahweh" (where J does), but that doesn't matter. there isn't a good reason to think that he would mean some different god (or multiple gods; the verbs are almost all singular).

that there are two different stories, though, should be uncontroversial.

I do think it's interesting to consider that there might have been a creation prior to the six days of Genesis 1

as i covered above, grammatically, the first verse of genesis reads, "when god began to create the heaven and the earth..." and does not allow for any such gap. if you trust other sources, fine. i cited sources, including jewish commentary from the middle ages. this is not some weird argument i'm making up; this is the standard jewish translation.

in which the drama of Lucifer plays out.

that whole business is entirely un-biblical.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 05-08-2016 1:19 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 05-08-2016 3:07 PM arachnophilia has responded

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


Message 197 of 257 (783767)
05-08-2016 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by arachnophilia
05-08-2016 2:21 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
I don't have any interest in learning Hebrew. I'm going to trust the Christian theologians. If they think Rashi is authoritative I'm sure he'll be referred to.

I am just now beginning to consider Gap Theory because some worthy Christian theologians believe in it. I doubt I'm going to agree with it in the end, or much of it, but it's an interesting read.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by arachnophilia, posted 05-08-2016 2:21 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by ringo, posted 05-08-2016 3:18 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 206 by ICANT, posted 05-09-2016 1:45 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 208 by arachnophilia, posted 05-09-2016 2:26 AM Faith has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 198 of 257 (783769)
05-08-2016 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
05-08-2016 3:07 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Faith writes:

I'm going to trust the Christian theologians.


Spoken like a true Bible-commentary-literalist.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 05-08-2016 3:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5561
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 199 of 257 (783776)
05-08-2016 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by arachnophilia
05-08-2016 12:49 PM


Re: there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
Hi arach

arach writes:

i did. here it is again: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/..._construct_relation.html

Give me the specific suffix in your link that turns the first noun in Genesis 1:1 to a construct.

I will get to the rest of the message later, going to church now.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by arachnophilia, posted 05-08-2016 12:49 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by arachnophilia, posted 05-09-2016 2:12 AM ICANT has responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1345
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 200 of 257 (783786)
05-08-2016 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by kbertsche
05-08-2016 1:48 PM


Re: there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
kbertsche writes:

Getting back to the main topic, here is a quote from Word Biblical Commentary on the translation of Gen 1:1:

quote:

Comment

1-3 In the beginning God created. The stark simplicity of this, the traditional translation, disguises a complex and protracted debate about the correct interpretation of vv 13. Four possible understandings of the syntax of these verses have been defended.

1. V 1 is a temporal clause subordinate to the main clause in v 2: In the beginning when God created . . . , the earth was without form.. . .
2. V 1 is a temporal clause subordinate to the main clause in v 3 (v 2 is a parenthetic comment). In the beginning when God created . . . (now the earth was formless) God said.. . .
3. V 1 is a main clause, summarizing all the events described in vv 231. It is a title to the chapter as a whole, and could be rendered In the beginning God was the creator of heaven and earth. What being creator of heaven and earth means is then explained in more detail in vv 231.
4. V 1 is a main clause describing the first act of creation. Vv 2 and 3 describe subsequent phases in Gods creative activity. This is the traditional view adopted in our translation.

Theologically these different translations are of great consequence, for apart from #4, the translations all presuppose the existence of chaotic preexistent matter before the work of creation began. The arguments for and against these translations must now be reviewed.



I'm replying to myself; I wanted to add the Word Biblical Commentary discussion of the second option above. This is Rashi's view, which Arach holds. Word gives a nice summary of the pros and cons of this view. (FYI, this volume of the Word Biblical Commentary was by Gordon Wenham.)

quote:

#2 was first propounded by Rashi, though there are hints in rabbinic texts that it may have been known earlier (Schfer, 16266). More recent defenders include Bauer, Bayer, Herrmann, Humbert, Lane, Loretz, Skinner, and Speiser, as well as RSV mg., NEB, NAB, and TEV.

This interpretation begins with the observation that the first word ‏בראשׁית‎ literally, in beginning, does not have the definite article. It may therefore be construed as a construct and the whole clause may then be translated, In the beginning of Gods creation of heaven and earth. In this type of construction the verb is usually in the infinitive (‏בְּרֹא‎ ) whereas here it is perfect (‏בָּרָא he created). However, this is not without parallel; cf. Hos 1:2 (F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea, AB24 [Garden City: Doubleday, 1980] 153.)

In support of this being the right interpretation of v 1 the following arguments are also cited. First, ראשׁית beginning rarely, if ever, has the absolute sense: it means formerly, firstly, not first of all. Second, Gen 2:4b, usually regarded as the start of the second account of creation, begins, literally, in the day of the making by the LORD God of heaven and earth. Third, Enuma elish and the Atrahasis epic both begin with a similar dependent temporal clause. However, the majority of recent writers reject this interpretation for the following reasons:

First and fundamental is the observation that the absence of the article in ‏בראשׁית‎ does not imply that it is in the construct state. Temporal phrases often lack the article (e.g., Isa 46:10; 40:21; 41:4, 26; Gen 3:22; 6:3, 4; Mic 5:1; Hab 1:12). Nor can it be shown that ‏ראשׁית‎ may not have an absolute sense. It may well have an absolute sense in Isa 46:10, and the analogous expression ‏מראשׁ‎ in Prov 8:23 certainly refers to the beginning of all creation. The context of ‏בראשׁית standing at the start of the account of world history makes an absolute sense highly appropriate here. The parallel with Gen 2:4b disappears, if, as argued below, the next section of Genesis begins with 2:4a, not 4b. As for the alleged parallels with Mesopotamian sources, most of those who acknowledge such dependence point out that better parallels with extrabiblical material may be found in Gen 1:23 than in 1:1. The first verse is the work of the editor of the chapter; his indebtedness to earlier tradition first becomes apparent in v 2.

On these grounds most modern commentators agree that v 1 is an independent main clause to be translated In the beginning God created . . . ...


Edited by kbertsche, : Shortened quote


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by kbertsche, posted 05-08-2016 1:48 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5561
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 201 of 257 (783838)
05-09-2016 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by arachnophilia
05-08-2016 12:49 PM


Re: there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
Hi arach

arach writes:

when it's an infinitive.

What makes the verb in Genesis 1:1 an infinitive?

arach writes:

incorrect. look at the other verse i gave you:

OK

arach writes:

what tense is בְּרֹא here? does it have a suffix?

The verb בְּרֹא is kal perfect 3ps. No suffix. Why?

arach writes:

it is in the construct state, as rashi shows.

But Rashi requires the use of Masoret vowel pointing system to be able to make it construct.

There was only consonantal vowels in Biblical Hebrew.

arach writes:


i did. here it is again: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/..._construct_relation.html

But an ית suffix does not exist on the link there.

Unless you are referring to the irregular construct of house ית־ as it has a maqqef which still requires a noun to be attached to the maqqef.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by arachnophilia, posted 05-08-2016 12:49 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5561
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 202 of 257 (783840)
05-09-2016 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by arachnophilia
05-08-2016 12:55 PM


Re: there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
Hi arach

arach writes:

you'd read it as a infinitive,

Why?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by arachnophilia, posted 05-08-2016 12:55 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5561
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 203 of 257 (783842)
05-09-2016 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by arachnophilia
05-08-2016 1:15 PM


Re: two stories
Hi arach

arach writes:

quote:
בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.

when god began to create the heaven and the earth...



Wrong.

arach writes:

and ends,

quote:
אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם

these are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created


The phrase "These are the generations of" appears in the Bible 17 time and all 17 times it precedes the list of the generations. So why are you trying to put it after your version of the generations?


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by arachnophilia, posted 05-08-2016 1:15 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5561
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 204 of 257 (783844)
05-09-2016 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
05-08-2016 1:19 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi Faith

Faith writes:

I read it to say everything was created by the end of Genesis 1, and Genesis 2:1 pronounces it all finished.

So what do you do with the generations of the heaven and the earth in the day the heavens and the earth began to exist?

Faith writes:

where the order of things isn't relevant.

Why do you say part of God's Word is irrelevant?

Faith writes:

HOW the man was formed -- from the dust of the ground -- and it's not about WHEN the man was formed

Genesis 2:7 says he was formed from the dust of the ground. But Genesis 2:4 says that was accomplished the same day God created the heavens and the earth.

Faith writes:

Because it's possible to get all kinds of things out of the Bible if a person has a mind to and all one can argue is that this or that interpretation is more reasonable than another,

Then take my statements in the message you was replying too and take it verse by verse and explain how I am mis-interperting what the Bible says.

Faith writes:

Not in my experience.

Explain what each of the following says:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

When you get through explaning what these verses say answer the following questions.

When was the heavens and the earth created.
Where do you find the history (generations ) of the heavens and the earth?
When was the man in Genesis 2:7 formed from the dust of the ground?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 05-08-2016 1:19 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5561
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 205 of 257 (783846)
05-09-2016 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by arachnophilia
05-08-2016 2:11 PM


Re: there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
Hi arach

arach writes:

because re-voweling the second word solves the problem, re-voweling the first does not.

In other words it suites your worldview that you keep arguing.

arach writes:

ignore them entirely, and you end up with a fairly straightforward grammar.

Why not just ignore all of them as they did not exist in the original text and solve all the problems.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by arachnophilia, posted 05-08-2016 2:11 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5561
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 206 of 257 (783847)
05-09-2016 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
05-08-2016 3:07 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi Faith,

Faith writes:

I don't have any interest in learning Hebrew. I'm going to trust the Christian theologians. If they think Rashi is authoritative I'm sure he'll be referred to.

The other rabbi's of his did not accept his translation.

Faith writes:

I am just now beginning to consider Gap Theory

It is a nice study but it did not happen for the heavens and the earth was completed in 6 light periods and 6 dark periods.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 05-08-2016 3:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by arachnophilia, posted 05-09-2016 2:27 AM ICANT has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 207 of 257 (783848)
05-09-2016 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by ICANT
05-08-2016 4:46 PM


collected replies for ICANT
ICANT writes:

Give me the specific suffix in your link that turns the first noun in Genesis 1:1 to a construct.

it's a non-standard suffix. as i believe i covered above (as did rashi), the absolute form is ראשונה.

quote:
When a feminine singular noun is in the construct state, it may or may not undergo vowel changes, but if the word ends in a Hey, it changes to Tav.

this one is slightly unusual in that it also adds a yud. however, the tav if the important part -- it's the construct suffix.

What makes the verb in Genesis 1:1 an infinitive?

the fact that it follows a construct noun.

The verb [in genesis 5:1] בְּרֹא is kal perfect 3ps. No suffix. Why?

check it again. here's a link that lists that verb conjugation: https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/5/1/t_conc_5001

click on the little bit that says "parse" next to the stem. note that it says,

quote:
Stem: Qal
Aspect: Infinitive

not also the lack of a suffix. this is an infinitive construct, and those sometimes have all the same consonants.

But Rashi requires the use of Masoret vowel pointing system to be able to make it construct.

he does not; rather he points out that ראשית always appears in the construct state. the vowel don't actually matter, and the editorial note that chabad adds (chabad being the easiest place to find rashi online), says:

quote:
This verse calls for a midrashic interpretation because according to its simple interpretation, the vowelization of the word בָּרָא, should be different, as Rashi explains further

so his explanation is actually in contrast to the vowels, for at least part of it. he does try to read it both ways, though.

Unless you are referring to the irregular construct of house ית־ as it has a maqqef which still requires a noun to be attached to the maqqef.

the maqef is irrelevant; those are also added later.

quote:
you'd read it as a infinitive,

Why?

for the same reason you'd read it as an infinitive in gen 5:1; the other reading doesn't make sense, given that word that precedes it acts as a complex preposition. sure, we could read, "in the day, comma, god created man." but in what day? like, when the sun was shining? that's clearly not what it means. it's a subordinate clause, "in the day of yahweh making man," he did something else, "he made man in his image". and this is for a noun without a clear construct suffix. יום can be read perfectly fine as an absolute.

also note that here the vowel points agree.

quote:
בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.

when god began to create the heaven and the earth...


Wrong.

this is the translation used in modern scholarly editions, and the newer JPS tanakh, and for the reasons i've been spelling out in this thread.

The phrase "These are the generations of" appears in the Bible 17 time and all 17 times it precedes the list of the generations. So why are you trying to put it after your version of the generations?

the verse was likely added by a redactor anyways; it's possible it was meant to precede gen 2's story.

In other words it suites your worldview that you keep arguing.

no, not really. i don't happen to think any of this particularly represents the real world, so believe me when i say, it wouldn't really matter to me if it did fit your view. i wouldn't really care. but, it doesn't. so. yeah.

no, my argument is not based on my worldview in the slightest. it's based on hebrew grammar, and reading meaning from the text rather than into the text. i have no particular agenda, theology, or ideology i'm looking to impose on the text; i just want to explore what the text actually says and means, and how it came together in its present state.

if that supports your view, fine. if it makes your view untenable, that's fine too. i'm only going where the text supports, free of any ideological commitments.

Why not just ignore all of [the vowel points] as they did not exist in the original text and solve all the problems.

yes; that is precisely what i'm arguing we should do in this case.

Edited by arachnophilia, : tag fail


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 4:46 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by kbertsche, posted 05-09-2016 1:22 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2016 2:05 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(2)
Message 208 of 257 (783849)
05-09-2016 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
05-08-2016 3:07 PM


exegesis and eisegesis
Faith writes:

I'm going to trust the Christian theologians. If they think Rashi is authoritative I'm sure he'll be referred to.

it's not really a matter of whether or not rashi is "authoritative"; it's only a matter of whether he's right. and he is. look at all the uses of ראשית in the bible, and nearly all of them (except for a few idiomatic uses) are in the construct state.

I doubt I'm going to agree with it in the end, or much of it, but it's an interesting read.

the problem is, you're approaching the text with a preconceived idea. you're not doing exegesis, you're doing eisegesis. your theologians are not biblical scholars, they are apologists, aiming to defend a certain ideology using the bible. not attempting to ascertain what the authors of the bible thought or believed.

that's fine for faith, i suppose. the expression in literature is that the author is dead. literature exists in the minds of the readers, and if they read it to mean something else that matters to them in a different context, that's not wrong either. in a traditional framework like catholicism, we would even say that the scriptures exist as part of that framework rather than the basis for it. scripture is based on tradition, not vice versa.

but for a sola scriptura, protestant christian? you should probably go with what the bible says, and not what people are trying to shape it into to defend their theologies.

I don't have any interest in learning Hebrew.

and that's the thing; you're going to have to take these peoples' words for it. it's not that you know enough about the subject to say, "okay, these people are right, these people are wrong." you have to pick a side, not really knowing enough to justify it, on the faith that your chosen side isn't mistaken, biased, ignorant, or lying.

so how do you chose a side, except by picking the one that confirms what you already believe?

how can you really determine the truth here, if you're not willing to study the topic yourself?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 05-08-2016 3:07 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 11:46 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 11:51 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 209 of 257 (783850)
05-09-2016 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by ICANT
05-09-2016 1:45 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
ICANT writes:

The other rabbi's of his did not accept his translation.

the translation i gave you is the official translation of the jewish publication society. it's about as authoritative as you can get, as far as jewish translations.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by ICANT, posted 05-09-2016 1:45 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2016 2:14 AM arachnophilia has responded

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


Message 210 of 257 (783857)
05-09-2016 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by arachnophilia
05-09-2016 2:26 AM


Re: exegesis and eisegesis
[ Hide content of mostly duplicate post. See next message. --Admin ]

Faith writes:

doubt I'm going to agree with it in the end, or much of it, but it's an interesting read.

the problem is, you're approaching the text with a preconceived idea. you're not doing exegesis, you're doing eisegesis. your theologians are not biblical scholars, they are apologists, aiming to defend a certain ideology using the bible. not attempting to ascertain what the authors of the bible thought or believed.

But that is something I have in mind as I read. I know Gap Theory was developed in response to the challenges of science which is why I wasn't ever interested in it, and why I doubt they'll change my mind. But it's quite a list of the best of the best theologians who accept Gap Theory, which I know from other work they've done, so I have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are reading the Bible honestly.

The authors of these books I'm reading go into quite a bit of detail about how they arrived at their view of gap theory from the Bible. There's quite enough there for me to form my own opinion of it. I've also read the discussion at Blue Letter Bible, also Biblically argued, that the gap theory is wrong. I don't feel I'm in any danger from reading apologists, I want to know what they think and how they came to their conclusions.

I wasn't interested in Gap Theory until I saw that the first verses of Genesis do seem oddly disconnected from the rest, which I hadn't noticed before. That is an interesting fact that makes me interested in the arguments that underlie Gap Theory, (or theories, since there seem to be different versions of it.) The procedure is always to pray as you read, figuring that if you sincerely want to know the truth God will lead you to the truth.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quoting.

Edited by Admin, : Hid content of duplicate post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by arachnophilia, posted 05-09-2016 2:26 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
15161718Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017