|
Author
|
Topic: A listing of the contradictions and errors in the bible.
|
John
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 66 of 158 (18075)
09-23-2002 10:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by nos482
09-23-2002 10:33 PM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]Act your age. If you are a 13 year old, then try to act like an adult anyway while here. Emulation is possible even without experience or understanding of adult behavior.[/QUOTE] [/B] Well, I see that you've also encountered Nos. 
Believe me, you don't want to side with him. He makes you look like an atheist. Plus, he also thinks that you're going to hell for being a heretic as well because you accept Evoluton. At least you're reasonable on some topics, he's just plain nuts IMO. [This message has been edited by nos482, 09-23-2002]
I'll side with him, too, on this. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by nos482, posted 09-23-2002 10:33 PM | | nos482 has not replied |
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: Good English use would tell you "neither" has to do with a choice between two, being a grammatically singular word.
Funny thing is, it isn't modern English. It also didn't start out as English. It has translated. If you read the Greek, the word used for 'nor' in the above sentence, is also the word used for 'neither'
quote:
You would need a direct prophecy in the Old Testament naming him
Funny thing.... you type 'Jesus' into the search box at Blueletterbible.org and all of the verses returned are in the NT. How's that for naming names? ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
WS: It's one thing to be able to go find the Greek, another to know which Greek translation is the most accurate
How bout the one from which the KJV was translated? The Textus Receptus.
quote:
and quite another for any one non-biblical scholar to handle the Greek and its grammatical nuances better that the host of life-time scholars who have come to agreement on the English translation.
Host of scholars eh? The NKJV has "nor" in the offending spot. The NLT has both 'nor' and 'neither' as 'or' The NASB has 'nor' in the offending spot. The RSV also has 'nor' Webster's agrees with the KJV and keeps the 'neither' Young's has 'nor' Darby's has 'nor' The ASV has 'neithe' The HNV has 'nor' The Vulgate has 'neque' -- as it is in Latin-- in place of both neither and nor. Looks like the host of scholars are stacked against you. Its easier to launch an attack on my linguistic abilities than to look it up eh?
quote:
The standard for English grammar has been for centuries found in the KJV.
Surely your joking? If I wrote an essay in KJV English and turned it in to an english teacher the paper would dissolve in the red ink. We do not speak the English of the 1600s and haven't for centuries.
quote:
The use of neither and nor has not changed, though their use is becoming archaic probably people are not comfortable with them, not knowing the proper use anyway.
Actually, neither should come before nor, not nor before neither according to my grammar book.
quote:
As for the Greek word "oute" being used interchangeably, its use and meaning is based on the plurality or singularity of the subject. Singular- translated neither in the English equivalent of the definition. Plural- translated nor in the English equivalent, requiring two objects, one before, one after.
And most translators of modern bibles disagree with you.
quote:
WS: "Jesus" is the translation/combined English transliteration of the Greek Iesous, ee-ay-sooce'; of Hebrew origin [Hebrew 3091 (Yehowshuwa`)]; Jesus (i.e. Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites :- Jesus.
And it doesn't appear in the KJV before the NT.
quote:
God knows who we speak of, and so do you.
You are missing the point. I know of whom you speak; I do not know if the OT prophets spoke of Jesus because they never named him as such. These are you standards. See your previous post.
quote:
Anglicans and many other prople groups for that matter, can't even pronounce Yehowshuwa (approx. "wow-u-shoo-ah") without some tutoring, while Spanish/Hispanic people can't handle the "J", making a "Hey" of that, saying "Hayzus"- best they can utter. There are many of the peculiar Greek words in the NT you won't find in the OT, like "Christ".
And this matters why?
quote:
What would you look for in reference to Christ in the OT?
Jesus. You said 'named by name' ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
WS: All I have to say about the earlier part of your post is that there is absolutely no reference to a third prophet, the only references being to either Christ or Elijah.
Wrong again. It seems to be a pattern. w_fortenbury has shown this claim to be false.
quote:
The KJV rendering captures that, as determined by up to 70 scholars who made lifetime careers of studying the Scriptures.
Yes, and these 70 scholars trump all the other scholars who disagree? That is hardly sporting. No comment upon having your arrogance called on the issue of the word 'nor'? No comment upon being shown to be full of blustering hot-air? You will continue to trumpet the KJV?
quote:
You apparently don't know the history of some of those modern translations.
Gee, in fact I do. The problem, as I see it, is that you've made the KJV sacrosanct. Any deviation is simply wrong, the sources be damned.
quote:
You failed to answer my question properly. You would properly look for the English "messiah" in the OT to find reference to the Greek "Christ".
Right.... isn't that a clever ploy. Insist that Muhammed be named by name, yet Jesus can be named by a general term. You are missing the point.
quote:
Since then the language has changed dramatically, but the technical grammatical rules remain the same.
You mean like not beginning a sentence with 'and'? Or putting 'neither' before 'nor'? This is crap. The language has changed since Kng James. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
WS: He supported my case, not yours. He verified the object of the case, "that prophet" referring to a choice between Christ and Elijah, the prophecies definitely indicating Christ. John pointed them to the Christ, Jesus walking among them THEN, not hundreds of years later, a sand pirate named Muhammad.
It is assumption on the part of Christians- and John-- that the prophet spoken of in the OT was Christ. He isn't named in the OT.
quote:
WS: Some of the most modern versions are in fact full of damnable verses. No such distortions in the KJV.
God forbid an accurate translation conflict with the KJV.
quote:
WS: I don't think so. Jesus was clearly linked to the OT through his other name Emmanuel, and the many variations of Yeshua, Jehovah saves.
Wishful thinking. Cut out the NT and you cannot discover the identity of Jesus.
quote:
The case for Muhammad is non-existent, with not one shred of reference to that name.
As the OT doesn't name names, any name will work just fine.
quote:
Nothing has changed except for people not knowing the rules of grammar like they once did.
LOL........... Living languages change. A grammar book does not create a language. The people using it create the language. Grammar books codify it, and lag perpetually behind.
quote:
First, this from Bartleby.com:
This supports my point that the English we use is not that of the KJV. You see, the KJV says 'nor' nor' 'neither' whereas proper english is 'neither... nor...'
quote:
I suggested that if there was a third object in there, the word "nor"
would have been required to qualify "neither" with an object other than "Christ" or "Elijah".
Or it happens to be written in a dialect with which you are not accustomed and it happen to be written somewhat poetically at that. Not to mention that most translations do not render the passage with the 'neither' You are resting a huge weight upon this particular translation. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: I issued a fair-play challenge to this fellow "Nos" who runs away like a scared rabbit, who has been exposed now as an accuser not willing to stand and take judgment. He needs to be judged in this life, that maybe he will avoid it in THE Judgment. I find this type of human flees with his list of false accusations to new places hoping to find gullible people who will be awe-struck at his "wisdom". He leaves a trail of shame.
And here we agree my friend...
quote:
There is no difference in the oldest known copies of manuscripts, and no known original letters.
Would you mind naming those oldest known copies?
quote:
The Dead Sea Scrolls, which had been preserved a very long time, verify that what was already accepted as authentic copy was indeed authentic, not tampered with over the millennia.
As I understand it, there isn't a lot of overlap either so your conclusion that the copiers were faithful is questionable. At best, you can conclude that where the texts overlap the copiers can be shown to have been faithful.
quote:
It isn't necessary to read Hebrew to obtain the message of the Scriptures.
But it is necessary to read the original if you are going to quibble over turns of phrase and vocabulary, as you often do. Any translation is subject to the biases of the translator, as no two languages exist in a one to one relationship. Translation is not science.
quote:
To insist on that is the essence of gnosticism.
I don't follow. You are using a definition of Gnosticism I have not encountered.
quote:
A person concluding from the Bible the earth is flat will also probably have difficulty using an encyclopedia or cookbook.
There is no statement in the Bible the earth is flat.
I've noticed a few passages suggesting that the Earth is flat. There are numerous references to the Earth resting on pillars and/or being stable and unmoving. Heaven as well is described as resting on pillars.
quote:
As close as a person can get is reference to cardinal directions, which are communicated in flat-plane terms even now since people still can't think in terms of curvature of the earth.
Retrospectively this makes a lot of sense. That is, to modern ears it rings true. But considering that other cultures of the same region at that same time represented a flat Earth in much the same terms suggest that the Israelites as well believed in a flat Earth. You cannot cut them out of the context in which they lived and expect to analyze the religion properly.
quote:
Too many readers never get around to learning the rules of interpretation.
The rules of interpretation? Would those be the same rules used to evaluate other texts of ancient mythology? I thought not.
quote:
They are easy to locate on the web, and most homiletics textbooks do a fine job of teaching how to derive proper sermons by proper interpretation.
... a fine job of teaching how to interpret passages according to the biases of the textbook's author. wow..... ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
WS: Save me some sleep time and just visit here: BFBS MAT - New Site Redirect
'k. Thanks.
quote:
WS: You need to bone up on that. They are still unwrapping thousands of fragments, many overlapping, and all exactly matching pre-dead sea discovery sources. The studies will require a few more decades to go through all of those documents.
Exactly matching? Did you say exactly matching?
Forbidden Notice how various books change size, Jeremiah for example. How is this possible with an EXACT match? Added by edit: Take a look at Genesis according to the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Amazon.com Notice how some verses are missing, particularly in Chapter 2? What I do not know is the method used to number the verses. As you can see, some verse numbers are completely missing. Verses could be numbered to reflect corresponding verses in modern Bibles, or they could reflect the actual numbering used in the scrolls, with the missing verses being lost. The latter seems odd, as it would reflect a non-standard method of translation. Usually, missing portions are more clearly delineated.
quote:
WS: I have found not one credible scholar, secular or religious, that agrees.
Guess somebody should tell these guys: TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism quote:
Because the various TRANSLATIONS by many different groups in different times agree so well, it is a settled matter as to the literal word translations.
I thought some of those translations had "damnable verses" yet now you claim the unity of the translations as proof that the issue is settled?
quote:
It is the INTERPRETATIONS that bother you.
It is? Tell me, do the interpretations of the Rig Vedas bother you? Or the implications of the Egyptian Book of the Dead? I thought not. Why? Because you don't believe the underlying mythology.
quote:
There is no significant benefit in re-translating the original texts.
I never said re-translate. I said read. God choose to speak to humankind in HEBREW. Yet no one seems to think it worth the bother to learn the language. Why is it that no one sees the irony of this?
quote:
WS: Please don't make such general statements. Let's dissect the actual verses IN CONTEXT.
Oh come now, WS. You are just chock full of general statements.
quote:
WS: You need to cite those claims about the neighbors believing in a flat earth. Where do you get that?
It isn't hard to figure out. Look up the civilizations mentioned in the Good Book-- the Babylonians, the Philistines, the Egyptians, the Chaldeans, the Sumerians. I'll get you started:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/religion.htm Or you could just try reading some of the mythology...
quote:
WS: You will find that by not having some knowledge of apologetics and the principles of exegesis, and other skills, you will fail in trying to argue the Bible.
You didn't answer the question. Do the same rules apply to the Bible which apply to other religious texts? ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 10-03-2002] [This message has been edited by John, 10-03-2002] [This message has been edited by John, 10-03-2002]
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
Abraham worshipped Jehovah, the Lord God. Islam insults Abraham. If any substitution, it was the adoption of the pagan Moon god "Allah"
You do realize that Hebrew and Arabic are closely related and that "Allah" comes from the same root as "El" and "Elohim"? ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
WS: I beg you, please learn to use the quote feature.
[quote][b]Nos doesn't understand the definition of a circle[/quote] [/b] Right.....
quote:
circle (srkl)
n. A plane curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center.
A planar region bounded by a circle.
Something, such as a ring, shaped like such a plane curve.
A circular course, circuit, or orbit: a satellite's circle around the earth.
quote:
sphere (sfr)
n. Mathematics. A three-dimensional surface, all points of which are equidistant from a fixed point.
A spherical object or figure.
Both definitions are from Dictionary.com-- editted for brevity, but look them up yourself. Notice that a circle refers to a plane -- ie. two dimensional space -- while a sphere refers to three dimensional space.
[quote]Let's get the coin fallacy out of the way first. A coin is a section of a cylinder. It is composed of two circles bounding an interior space (volume), with two outer surfaces, and one edge. A coin is NOT a circle, and is NOT flat, but is three dimensional (length, height, and width=volume), with a truly round coin having equal length and width.[/b][/quote] This is ridiculous, WS. It is patently absurd to apply modern mathematical definitions to 4000 year old mythology. That you even consider such sophistry is almost beyond belief. Secondly, colloquially, a circle DOES mean coin or coin-like object. Grab a thesaurus. You'll see synonyms like "disk" and "ring" and "circlet". Here is the clicher for me: why do the many scholars who have translated the Bible with utmost perfection not render this as 'sphere', which is undeniably the better English word if it in fact means what you claim it means? In other words, you are equivocating on the accuracy of the translations.
quote:
A sphere is mathematically implied.
Like hell....
[quote][b]Going on to the Scripture in question, let's quote it again, but this time in context:[/quote] [/b] And the context adds what to the discussion?
quote:
(Note): Notice the often left out part about the grasshoppers. The idea is that God sits so far above the round earth that men look like mere grasshoppers.
Actually, it isn't very high up at all. I'd say, maybe thirty or forty floors will do it. Heaven is pretty close. No wonder God was afraid of the building of the Tower of Babel.
quote:
The Hebrew word "chuwg"
Is defined as (Davar Hebrew Lexicon): 1) to encircle, encompass, describe a circle, draw round, make a circle 1a) (Qal) to encircle, encompass Not terribly sphere-like. It sounds more like a king delineating his kingdom that a God surveying a planet. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 10-03-2002]
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: I saw that and noted it was entirely speculation without reference.
I gave you a reference.
quote:
The only relationship between a disk and a circle is that the base of a disk (the coin) is "circular". But the circle of the base can't possibly represent the disk, like a circle can represent a sphere, since the disk has a third dimension unrelated to circles- height.
Pure sophistry. This is amazing. You are arguing mathematics when the real issue is language. How many times have you said 'circle' when you meant 'sphere'? Really? You might say 'round' but 'circle'? No.
quote:
It is inescapable the curvature of the earth would be observed by mariners of ancient times, seeing ships rise from below the horizon.
I think maybe you over-estimate the ancient mariners. The 'sea-faring' civilizations stayed within site of land. Now if you stay within sight of land and all of your buddies hug the coast as well, you aren't going to see many boats come over the horizon. The boats were low to the water, thereby obscuring the effect you mention. You might be talking about a damned obvious effect if you are watching a 250 foot four mast schooner come over the horizon, but if that boat is a 30 foot row boat? Not so obvious. And lets not forget about waves tossing all of the little boats about, further obscuring the observations.
quote:
There imply was no obvious discussion of a "flat earth" in biblical times
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat_earth_myth_ch5.html quote:
None of the great philosophers referred to the Hebrews or any other ancient group as believing the earth was flat.
------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: You contradict your own reference. They state this:
"However, we believe medieval discoverers did NOT fear sailing off the edge of the earth."
And was I talking about medieval mariners? Concerning the sea-faring Hebrews:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n16/disk01_.html quote:
Nor did pre-medieval mariners fear that.
.... by the time of Aristotle, which is about 2500 to 3000 years-- at least-- after the origin of the myths we are discussing.
quote:
Solomon was heavily involved with shippers, not row-boats.
The point is the size of the ships used. And I hate to break it to you, but ships of the time had large banks of oars, as the technology to capture wind power was rudimentary.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.artsales.com/lSolomon'sNavy.htm Of special note from the above article: It is speculated that navigation was accomplished not in the open ocean but primarily by short hops along and within view of coastlines. There is also a picture of a common ship design of the time.
quote:
Shipping by large freighters was commonplace, and it was mariners that did in fact travel beyond the coast in those days, importing and exporting.
Back this up. Until you do, I will consider it just more of your bombast.
quote:
There are only a few scattered references to a few philosophers who promoted ideas of a flat earth.
You seem to have a real problem with chronology.
quote:
That site just continues wild speculation on those few actual hints of even the Babylonians' beliefs.
Your speculation, of course, isn't wild.
quote:
Speculative opinions are no proof of the beliefs of the authors of the Bible.
Glad you agree. So will you now drop YOUR speculative opinions as to the beliefs of the authors of the Bible?
quote:
You have not put a hairline scratch on the Bible, and won't.
And that is the difference between you and I. I actually care about the truth, and I mean that sincerely. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 10-04-2002]
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
You might be suprised by the amount of evidence that has been presented for ancient transatlantic travel.
I am aware of some of these theories, but I am not convinced. If you know of some theory that is particularly convincing to you, I'll certainly take a look.
quote:
The same curvature which causes one to see a ship dissapear over the horizon, will also cause one to see distant mountains rising out of the desert.
I haven't noticed this effect but it is a thought. Three potential problems come to mind. 1) Objects appear smaller with distance and resolution becomes increasingly poor. These two effects would conspire, I propose, to obscure the effects you point out. In other words, mountian rising ove the horizon would look pretty much like a mountain increasing in size as one approaches it. 2) An uneven landscape would also obscure this effect. As one walks up and down small inclines the mountian would appear to move up and down relative to the highest visible bit of land. 3) Heat rising off of a hot desert floor obscures anything at a great distance.
quote:
Thus it is certainly possible that the ancient Hebrews were cognizant of the spherical shape of the earth, especially after their forty years of nomadic life.
Another thought: Even if the Isrealites noticed that the land around them seemed to curve, it does not follow that they concluded that the world was spherical. They could have concluded that they lived on a huge shallow mountain surrounded by an ocean. This doesn't require a conscience belief in a spherical planet. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
Jeffrey Burton Russell... that through antiquity and up to the time of Columbus, "nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical."
Again you show the difficulty you have with TIME. You notice that Russell starts at 'antiquity' around AD 300 or so. This, I repeat, is about 3000 years later in history than the time frame under discussion. This confusion of chronology only makes you look bad.
quote:
Next, as to when large ocean-going ships are known to have been available, it is known the Sumerians invented large sail-driven ships that were also equipped with oars for times there was no wind. That goes back as far as 1500 BC.
And again... 1500 BC is a much too recent date. The myths of Egypt, Babylon, Sumer, etc. were well established by 3500 BC.
quote:
Start here:
05sailors12.htm [Shortened too-long link. --Admin]
And this helps your case how? The ships illustrated are essentially the same as the one I cited. Many of them are much more primative vessels.
quote:
At sea in the night one can see light of a lighthouse, then the light itself ON the horizon, slowly "rising" upon approach, similar to the rising of the moon.
And a few miles out an oil tanker looks like a matchbox car. A few more miles and it is a dot on the horizon. I have watched ships at the coast. It isn't as damned obvious as you'd like me to believe. The effect depends, as well, upon how far out to sea one goes. That is, if you hug the coast you don't see a lot come over the horizon. Things like land get in the way.
quote:
When the water is calm, like a sheet of glass, anything at all on the horizon is very discernable without a telescope.
Define very discernable. Do you mean that you can see something on the horizon?
quote:
All ships appear to rise out of the horizon, growing taller as well as larger upon approach.
Perspective will wash out the effect in the case of a ten foot tall ship. Add to this the motion of the waves.
quote:
It doesn't take a textbook to teach a person the earth surface is continually curved.
It does take a person capable of thinking in those terms though. I cannot find any good sources on the web, but march down to a used book store and grab a few cultural anthropological case studies. Many cultures view the cosmos in radically different terms than we do in the west today.
quote:
I would suspect a person in antiquity would be laughed to scorn who would insist the earth was flat
Again you display a confusion of chronology.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node31.html quote:
There was no dispute until much later long AFTER the Old Testament books were written.
You may be right, but that there was not dispute does not mean that people thought the Earth was spherical. Here's a good one: Ancient Cosmology of the Earth And another: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/RTOT/CH1/CH1_1A1C.HTM And another:
Three views of cosmology And another:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/RushEngr/private/aspects.htm And another:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.worldhistory1a.homestead.com/HEBREWS.html------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 10-05-2002] [This message has been edited by Admin, 10-06-2002]
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
WS: You haven't come up with a single proof from history or otherwise of the Hebrews knowing or not knowing the earth was spherical in shape.
Please tell me you are not going to play the "prove-it" game by trying to play on the idea that not much can be technically proven. All of the evidence points to the belief in a flat earth. Actually, that is wrong. All of the evidence points towards belief in a flat landscape -- the idea of 'planet' which is implied in our word 'Earth' simply didn't exist. This, of course, you will deny.
quote:
All there is to be thrown around is argument. For instance, I can offer this from Can the curvature of the Earth only be seen from outer space? | HowStuffWorks
which is a very simplified example of how easy it should be to reason this out.
Well, you certainly could throw that out, but can you show that such chains of logic were actually followed by the Isrealites? No. The same chains of logic, if they are as blatantly obvious as you claim, should have been made by pretty every culture on the planet and that simply isn't the case. You'd know this if you read a few cultural anthropoplgical studies. By the way, we have discussed everything brought up by the copy/paste from howstuffworks.com. Repeating those arguments do not make them any better. How about addressing my objections directly? You aren't doing that, and we'd get a lot further if you would.
[quote]Next, recall that Moses, writer of the first five books of the Bible[/b][/quote] Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible, despite their having been attributed to him. I know this is pointless:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa079.htm quote:
What do you suppose they knew then? Check out 404error
Gee, that's interesting. And it applies to the debate how?
quote:
The Pythagorean theorum was known a thousand years before its time.
Yeah, no kidding!!! And this applies to the debate how?
quote:
Aristole also demonstrated the curvature of the earth, with no fanfare whatsoever about it not being flat.
How many times do I have to point out that this is some 3000 years later than the time when these myths were born? Are you truly that dense or are you just ignoring me?
quote:
This ongoing suspicion the writers of the Bible believed the earth was flat is only a continuation of false assertions about Christians during the initial reactions to Darwinism.
BS.
quote:
This sort of thinking is very typical of the continual desperation of atheists to find fault with the Bible.
LOL..... Keep talking. The more you post the better my case looks.
quote:
No matter how many times their ideas are refuted, they just keep coming back with more of the same, always amounting to nonsense.
This claim would carry more weight if you had actually refuted something. You haven't even addressed my concerns head-on, but merely repeated your assertions over and over. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
Re: Bible: CNN or National Enquirer
quote:
It is meant only as a personal guide, not the end-all, be-all authority on what is right and what is wrong (otherwise, no God-fearing Christian would wear purple or blended fabric; look it up, I swear they are in the Bible).
Isn't this precisely why it can be used as a platform for narrow-mindedness? Calling it a 'guide' opens the door to picking and choosing what one likes and tossing the rest-- not much of a guide, really.
quote:
Otherwise, we would be nothing more than Gigapets for Him.
True... just as it is portrayed in the OT. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 152 by monqygirl, posted 08-08-2003 11:36 PM | | monqygirl has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2