Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 460 (4673)
02-15-2002 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Mister Pamboli
02-15-2002 7:38 PM


(Sorry Wmscott, I don't want to try and stray your debate in here, I just had to reply to quicksink on this one)
"Creationists - According to Genesis chapter one, Which was created first, male or female?"
"Are you saying that the Biblical Tower of Babel definitely existed"
--Yeah.
"in the circumstances described in the Bible
of a nature as described in the Bible
and with consequences as described in the Bible"
--My argument is that it existed, I can't prove that God interveined and created various languages so the people could not understand each other or something of the like.
"and that the link you give provides evidence of this?"
--Is there something it is missing?
"If so, do you apply the same standards of evidence to your assessments of the evidence for evolution?"
--What would you mean? Also, I don't think I could be in a position to refute Evolution, I am more here to defend creationism as I know more in that catagory, and to really refute Evolution, it requires emense knowledge that I do not have as of yet in most areas.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-15-2002 7:38 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by quicksink, posted 02-16-2002 4:07 AM TrueCreation has replied

quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 460 (4684)
02-16-2002 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by TrueCreation
02-15-2002 11:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
(Sorry Wmscott, I don't want to try and stray your debate in here, I just had to reply to quicksink on this one)
"Creationists - According to Genesis chapter one, Which was created first, male or female?"
"Are you saying that the Biblical Tower of Babel definitely existed"
--Yeah.
"in the circumstances described in the Bible
of a nature as described in the Bible
and with consequences as described in the Bible"
--My argument is that it existed, I can't prove that God interveined and created various languages so the people could not understand each other or something of the like.

REPONSE: Somehow I doubt that you cannot prove that god intervened. After all, you can't PROVE that god made the great flood (if it existed). I think that you don't want to defend it all, as it is such nonsense. Today we have interplanetary missions. the votagers are beyond Pluto. When's god going to stop those?
quote:
"and that the link you give provides evidence of this?"
--Is there something it is missing?
"If so, do you apply the same standards of evidence to your assessments of the evidence for evolution?"
--What would you mean? Also, I don't think I could be in a position to refute Evolution, I am more here to defend creationism as I know more in that catagory, and to really refute Evolution, it requires emense knowledge that I do not have as of yet in most areas.

RESPONSE: TC- you can't have it both ways. If you defend creationism, you are falsifying evolution. The two simply cannot exist. So if you're hear to defend creationism, you better be ready to push evolution back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by TrueCreation, posted 02-15-2002 11:37 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 1:27 PM quicksink has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 124 of 460 (4704)
02-16-2002 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by doctrbill
02-15-2002 10:36 PM


quote:
Scott wrote:
"Noah could have only had a small cross section of animals on the ark. The rest survived on their own, that view is compatible with scripture by the way."

doctrbill wrote: - "How is it compatible with the following?"

"I will cause it to rain upon the earth ... and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." Genesis 7:4 King James Version.
"He blotted out every living thing ... man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark." Genesis 7:23,24 Revised Standard Version.
-----------------
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by doctrbill, posted 02-15-2002 10:36 PM doctrbill has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 460 (4711)
02-16-2002 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by quicksink
02-16-2002 4:07 AM


"REPONSE: Somehow I doubt that you cannot prove that god intervened."
--If you can show me a potential falsification on this, then I would go at it, but I know of none.
"After all, you can't PROVE that god made the great flood (if it existed)."
--Exactly.
"I think that you don't want to defend it all, as it is such nonsense."
--I already have, the problem is, it requires potential falsification to be defended at all within the scientific realm.
"Today we have interplanetary missions. the votagers are beyond Pluto. When's god going to stop those?"
--Theres no reason to stop them.
"RESPONSE: TC- you can't have it both ways. If you defend creationism, you are falsifying evolution."
--No your not, If I am defending creationism, I am showing that the Creationist theories are valid and plausable, If I were to attempt to falsify Evolution, I have to show that it is not compatable with the evidence, different concepts.
"The two simply cannot exist. So if you're hear to defend creationism, you better be ready to push evolution back."
--I don't need to be.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by quicksink, posted 02-16-2002 4:07 AM quicksink has not replied

quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 460 (4791)
02-16-2002 9:03 PM


Dendrochronology
That means tree-ring counting. Dendrochronologists, by matching patterns in annual growth rings, can establish a sequence in living, dead, and long-dead trees in certain areas of the world. That can be a very reliable dating technique for, say, a beam used in an ancient shelter. But this archeological specialty must be completely useless and unreliable, since in some areas ring sequences extend back through the supposed date of the Flood, showing no evidence of same, and indeed way past the usual young-Earth creation date. One of the conundrums of creationism is that the Earth was apparently created complete with evidence of a past that never happened, including tree rings, other annual layering phenomena, fossils already in the ground, and light from distant stars already most of the way here--revealing cosmic events that never really happened!
R.J. Riggins
I think the creationists will have a fun time with this.

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 9:12 PM quicksink has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 460 (4792)
02-16-2002 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by quicksink
02-16-2002 9:03 PM


"I think the creationists will have a fun time with this."
--I know I will See post #23 in 'How old is the earth', we can continue discussion there instead of straying the subject in WmScots thread. I would also like to discuss any of your other potential evidences.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by quicksink, posted 02-16-2002 9:03 PM quicksink has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 128 of 460 (4810)
02-17-2002 8:32 AM


doctrbill;
You misunderstand the word 'earth' in the scripture, the earth that is being referred to is the earth or dry ground we walk on, not the entire planet. Which is why no mention of fish or other marine life is made, they don't live on the 'earth'. Notice also the reference at Genesis 7:22. "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died" this verse clarifies what died in the flood, everything that breathe air and was on the dry land or 'earth', drowned because the earth was covered by water. They were wiped off the surface of the earth, some of those air breathing animals survived by rafting, they were no longer on the 'earth'. they were adrift, and survived along with air breathing marine mammals which were also in the flood waters. This pattern of survival is a tested to by the survival through the Pleistocene extinction of rare animal species in remote locations with no sign of migration to or from other parts of the earth.
quicksink;
On tree " ring sequences extend back through the supposed date of the Flood," yes they do, the flood was never meant to kill off the trees. A brief submergence in the winter time when the trees were dormant would not kill most trees. It does disprove the YEC type flood entirely.

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by doctrbill, posted 02-17-2002 10:50 AM wmscott has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 129 of 460 (4815)
02-17-2002 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by wmscott
02-17-2002 8:32 AM


Originally posted by wmscott:
"You misunderstand the word 'earth' in the scripture, the earth that is being referred to is the earth or dry ground we walk on, not the entire planet. Which is why no mention of fish or other marine life is made, they don't live on the 'earth'.
I am glad to see that you understand this.
Your thinking is progressive but I believe you could go farther.
For example, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon is called, "the hammer of the whole earth" which, "destroyeth all the earth" (Jeremiah 50:23; 51:25).
In this case, "whole earth" refers to a region of political influence; and "all the earth" is clearly neither a reference to our planet, nor inclusive of all "dry land".
Scott:
"... the flood was never meant to kill off the trees. A brief submergence in the winter time when the trees were dormant would not kill most trees."
I claim no expertise in botany but am aware that trees breathe air.
Scott
"... what died in the flood, everything that breathe air ..."
I am also an amateur gardener, and I believe that a combination of submersion, changes in salinity, and erosion of the substrate would be adequate to destroy most species.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS. - I believe that an unusually large annual inundation of the Mesopotamian Valley, via the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, is adequate to explain the biblical flood.
I hope we can continue to explore this "worldwide" flood and come to understand just how limited a worldview is expressed in the sacred pages of the ancient scripture.
------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by wmscott, posted 02-17-2002 8:32 AM wmscott has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 130 of 460 (4822)
02-17-2002 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by wmscott
02-14-2002 4:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
"references showing that filled oceans offer more support to continental mountains than shallow oceans" In reference to island mountains and sea level. "During each Glacial stage, a weight of water scores of meters deep was removed from a wide area of the crust around each island. That lowering of water pressure removed some support for the volcanic mass. Hence, the island tended to sink" (The Changing World of the Ice Age by Reginald Aldworth Daly 1934, p.155) Mountains along the edge of a continent would also be effected in the same way, but to a lesser degree.

1934? Really, I'd hoped you'd come up with something better than that.
quote:
On flexing the entire earth, "evidence that there was this sudden shift . . . has happened?" We do have extensive evidence that there has been wide scale and large shifts in elevations in connection with departure of the ice age glaciers.
Actually, not. You have shown only that there have been fluctuations on the order of a kilometer or so.
quote:
"The occurrence of a canyon, incised into thick deposits of till and fluvial conglomerates, shows that in Quaternary time the Himalayas underwent a powerful tectonic uplift, which approached 3000 m in axial parts (Xitao 1975)." (The Pleistocene; pages 315-316)
I don't suppose this had anything to do with plate tectonics...
quote:
The downward subsidence of the land during the ice age and it's subsequent rise at the end of the Wisconsin Ice Age is also affirmed by the pattern of river erosion. When an area of a river sinks, reducing the slope or grade of the river, sediments settle out in the slow moving water and build up. When the area is later uplifted, the grade is increased and the water flows faster, rapidly eroding down into the sediments and into the raised bedrock beneath the river bed. ...
No one disputes glacial isostatic rebound. In fact, I agree that it could be substantial. However, you have not shown that what we see in the geological record is anything out of the ordinary that would produce a global flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by wmscott, posted 02-14-2002 4:21 PM wmscott has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by no2creation, posted 02-18-2002 3:33 AM edge has not replied

no2creation
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 460 (4906)
02-18-2002 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by edge
02-17-2002 12:37 PM


Genesis 7
19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.
20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.(*)(**)
*Hebrew fifteen cubits (about 6.9 meters)
**Or rose more than twenty feet, and the mountains were covered
- The flood covered the earth with water fifteen cubits (twenty plus feet) above the highest mountains. This would require a steady, worldwide rainfall at the rate of about 6 inches per minute, 360 inches per hour, 8640 inches per day, for 40 days and nights. For him to cover the entire earth with an endless ocean 5 miles deep, thus burying 29,000 ft. Mt. Everest under 22 ft. of water. How did the author know the depth of the water? Did Noah take soundings? And where has all this water gone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by edge, posted 02-17-2002 12:37 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by doctrbill, posted 02-18-2002 11:01 AM no2creation has replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 132 of 460 (4931)
02-18-2002 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by no2creation
02-18-2002 3:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by no2creation:
"Genesis 7
19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. ...
... where has all this water gone?"

A. "Mountains" and "hills," in this passage are given for the same Hebrew word - "har"; and probably refer to the Sumerian mud brick temples (ziggurats) of the Mesopotamian Valley. Consider the fact that the temple of Jehovah is also called a mountain (har).
B. The word "Earth" refers to the land, not to the Planet. A great flood could easily cover one of these early buildings (har) constructed on the flood plain of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. There is no need to bring Everest into the equation.
C. The water "receded from the earth" Genesis 8:3 Revised Standard Version. Did it go into space? No. Earth refers, not to the planet, but to that particular land which was flooded.
At the time of the flood, no one believed that Earth was spherical. That became a popular "theory" about 2,000 years later. But even as late as the beginning of the seventeenth century, Christian authorities refused to believe that Earth is a planet!
If drainage doesn't seem adequate to get rid of all that water, then consider Aristotles "chemistry" which would allow the water to become atmosphere. See:
http://www.geocities.com/anudei/DarkWater.html
Excerpt:
The idea that water is a prime element continued in the "chemistry" of Aristotle who believed there were four primary "elements," earth, air, water and fire. The relationship of these to one another is explained by Plato in what has been called the Platonic Cycle. In this "chemistry," any one of the elements can be transformed into another. In which case, the theory of watery origin remains valid. Observe...
...fire condenses into air, air liquefies to water, water solidifies to earth, earth sublimates into fire. In the reverse order, fire condenses to earth, earth dissolves into water, water vaporizes into air, and air becomes rarified into fire again. Science Since Babylon, de Solla Price [emphasis mine]
By this "science", the Greeks specualted that even the sun, moon and stars had originated from water.
------------
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by no2creation, posted 02-18-2002 3:33 AM no2creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by no2creation, posted 02-18-2002 3:27 PM doctrbill has replied

no2creation
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 460 (4951)
02-18-2002 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by doctrbill
02-18-2002 11:01 AM


quote:
Originally posted by doctrbill:
Excerpt:
The idea that water is a prime element continued in the "chemistry" of Aristotle who believed there were four primary "elements," earth, air, water and fire. The relationship of these to one another is explained by Plato in what has been called the Platonic Cycle...

1. If the earth was referred to as 'only the lands', is the same true for the rest of the bible?
2. Do Creationists believe in the Platonic Cycle? If so, then their claim of the earth being 4000 - 12000 years would be false. Since the "Platonic cycle", times the precession of the vernal equinox through the heavens, lasts 25,800 years.
How I think the story 'COULD' have happened:
There was a large flood that covered the inhabited land. Noah was a smart man; he may have taken the necessary precautions and built a large boat. Then one year it rained, and rained and rained. A flood took place, during which Noah had filled his boat with two animals of each from his farm (and some essentials for survival). Knowing they all wouldn't fit on his boat, and that he needed two of each for reproduction. The flood probably decimated most of the land, including people, animals, and buildings.
What I have a hard time believing is:
1. The flood lasted for 40 days (it could be conceivable but seems highly unlikely)
2. It destroyed absolutely everything except Noah and his animals
3. The flood covered 100% of the earth (popular belief by many)
4. Noah’s Ark contained two of every animal in existence
The great flood is only a story, if it was based on an actual event, then the author exaggerated the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by doctrbill, posted 02-18-2002 11:01 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by doctrbill, posted 02-19-2002 12:02 AM no2creation has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 134 of 460 (5006)
02-18-2002 7:26 PM


doctrbill;
"I claim no expertise in botany but am aware that trees breathe air" Not when they are dormant. A submergence of a few months in an ice age winter when the ground is frozen hard and ending before spring, would pass almost unnoticed by the plant kingdom. Spring rains could have washed any salt traces away before the ground thawed. no major erosion is expected from a flood caused by a progressive rise and then lowering of sea level. On hills where the tree record is unbroken at the time of the biblical flood, the submergence was short enough not to be much of a problem, lower elevations may have taken longer to drain, resulting in a progressively higher die off rate in plants. Lower areas were recolonized as they came above water by plants which had survived at higher locations. There are many areas of land that have spent considerable lengths of time underwater, that are now productive land. Rain flushes out the salt fairly quickly.
The "earth" in genesis refers to all the land. An ark would not be necessary for a limited area flood. Noah knew what a mountain was, the ark is reported as grounding on one. The reference to the temple of Jehovah as a mountain refers to mount Zion that it was built on and that God's worship would be lifted up above all others and over all mankind like a tall mountain. The building itself, to the best of my knowledge is not referred to as a mountain.
Psalm 48:1-2 "Jehovah is great and much to be praised
In the city of our God, [in] his holy mountain.
2 Pretty for loftiness, the exultation of the whole earth,
Is Mount Zion on the remote sides of the north,
The town of the grand King."
Isaiah 2:3 "And many peoples will certainly go and say: "Come, YOU people, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will instruct us about his ways, and we will walk in his paths." For out of Zion law will go forth, and the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem."
.
no2creation
You are new here, I believe all of your objections have already been addressed earlier in this posting. Plus they are answered in my book as well. The problem is you keep thinking YEC, have to start by thinking at least OEC and go from there. This new flood theory is outlined in the earlier postings, look at the first one for a brief overview.
edge;
"1934? Really, I'd hoped you'd come up with something better than that." Just what I had handy and it does show how long this has been known, this part of my theory is not new.
"You have shown only that there have been fluctuations on the order of a kilometer or so." Then we are making tremendous progress. Think of the stream erosion cutting down into the ice age stream material. Think of how much the area of the headwaters would have to be raised to increase the grade along the entire river length. Much of the uplift would have been in the form of an arch like up lift of the continents, with a localized uplift concentrated in some areas. Once you trace the stream back to its origin from the sea, the total elevation rise would be quite large in some cases.
"I don't suppose this had anything to do with plate tectonics..." Very good, yes it did. Think of forces that act together, sometimes they reinforce each other, like two wave patterns. This post ice age uplift would have magnified the uplift caused by plate tectonics. The deep acting uplift would have been most pronounced in areas were the crust was already softened or open to the movement of magma from below.

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by no2creation, posted 02-18-2002 8:15 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 136 by doctrbill, posted 02-18-2002 11:48 PM wmscott has not replied

no2creation
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 460 (5010)
02-18-2002 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by wmscott
02-18-2002 7:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
no2creation
a)You are new here, I believe all of your objections have already been addressed earlier in this posting. (b)Plus they are answered in my book as well.(c)The problem is you keep thinking YEC, have to start by thinking at least OEC and go from there. This new flood theory is outlined in the earlier postings, (d)look at the first one for a brief overview.

(A)Everyone has to start somewhere right? I'm sure I will refine my debating skills as I continue. For now, please forgive my ignorance.
(B)Doesn't help me out any, since I don't have a copy of your book.
(C)The YEC is what I am more familiar with. Many friends of mine are YEC's.
(D)Thank you. I did, but I probably overlooked a few things. Also see (A) above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by wmscott, posted 02-18-2002 7:26 PM wmscott has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 136 of 460 (5040)
02-18-2002 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by wmscott
02-18-2002 7:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by doctrbill;
"I claim no expertise in botany but am aware that trees breathe air"

quote:
Wm Scott
Not when they are dormant. A submergence of a few months in an ice age winter when the ground is frozen hard and ending before spring, would pass almost unnoticed by the plant kingdom.

I didn’t say I was ignorant of Botany.
Most plant species cannot tolerate submersion, much less being frozen, for any length of time. Adding salt to the formula virtually ensures lethal damage.
Scott
no major erosion is expected from a flood caused by a progressive rise and then lowering of sea level.
Have you never observed the rock carving capabilities of wave action? Consider the tremendous tidal surges which must have encircled the planet (working within the myth, of course). Think about the errosive damage tidal waves can accomplish!
Scott
The "earth" in genesis refers to all the land.
On what grounds do you make this assumption?
When God drove Cain "from the face of the earth," did Cain get on a boat? Genesis 4:14
Scott
An ark would not be necessary for a limited area flood.
Have you tried selling this to the people who live along the Mississippi River?
Scott
Noah knew what a mountain was, the ark is reported as grounding on one.
The Hebrew term is har which may also mean hill. And in Noah’s time, temple towers were called "mountains". (see below)
Scott
The reference to the temple of Jehovah as a mountain refers to mount Zion that it was built on The building itself, to the best of my knowledge is not referred to as a mountain.
Zion means Fortress, or Castle. Thus mount Zion may read Castle mount. Interestingly, the geological feature was called a "mountain" (or "hill"); The city built on it (Jerusalem) was called a "mountain"; And the towering stone Temple structure within the city is also, apparently, called a "mountain."
Jerusalem shall be called ‘The Faithful City’ and ‘The Holy Mountain’ and ‘The Mountain of the Lord of hosts’ Zechariah 8:3 Living Bible.
Ye shall have a song, as in the night when a holy solemnity is kept; and gladness of heart, as when one goeth with a pipe to come into the mountain of the LORD Isaiah 30:29.
the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains ... ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob’ Isaiah 2:2,3
Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest. Jeremiah 26:18 . the great Temple[/B] now stands Living Bible
Biblical use of the word mountain is not as simple as one might think.
>The Bible refers to governmental units as mountains:
To Babylon, Behold, I am against thee, O destroying mountain ... which destroyest all the earth Jeremiah 51:25. all the earth[/B]?
To Israel, prophesy unto the mountains of Israel Ezekiel 36:1.
>The Bible describes mountains which see and hear and melt:
The mountains saw thee and they trembled Habakkuk 3;10
Ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord Ezekiel 6:3.
the mountains shall be melted with their blood. Isaiah 34:3
Fact:
The ziggurat temples of Mesopotamia were called mountains by their Sumerian builders (the progenitors of all middle eastern cultures, including the Hebrew). These temple mounts satisfy all of the requirements of the metaphorical use of the word, mountain.
Noah may indeed have known what a mountain was, but Noah did not write the story. Besides, the important question here, I think, is -
Do we know what those mountains were?
-----------
db
------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by wmscott, posted 02-18-2002 7:26 PM wmscott has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024