Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
26 online now:
Heathen, Tangle (2 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,944 Year: 21,980/19,786 Month: 543/1,834 Week: 43/500 Day: 1/42 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 31 of 306 (505363)
04-10-2009 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by New Cat's Eye
04-10-2009 2:44 PM


Re: Storm Surge?
I'm not saying that the Genesis flood account is evidence of a global flood. I'm saying that the writers thought the whole world was flooded, not just their corner of it.

They thought it was, therefore they would write it that way. But what they thought has no bearing on what really happened. I'm just saying there may have been a flood, the Jewish people at the time attributed it ot their god because he was unhappy and therefore wiped everyone (as far as they knew) off the planet.

It turns out they were wrong, the flood didn't reach the entire world, but that doesn't change the fact that they wrote what they perceived, not what really happened.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 2:44 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 3:33 PM Perdition has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 306 (505366)
04-10-2009 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Perdition
04-10-2009 3:08 PM


Re: Storm Surge?
I'm not saying that the Genesis flood account is evidence of a global flood. I'm saying that the writers thought the whole world was flooded, not just their corner of it.

They thought it was, therefore they would write it that way.

That was my whole point.

And that's my argument against the OP. Even though we know that when the said "earth" they were not talking about the planet, we can infer that they must have been talking about the whole world.

But what they thought has no bearing on what really happened. I'm just saying there may have been a flood, the Jewish people at the time attributed it ot their god because he was unhappy and therefore wiped everyone (as far as they knew) off the planet.

I already agreed that that was a possibility.

It turns out they were wrong, the flood didn't reach the entire world, but that doesn't change the fact that they wrote what they perceived, not what really happened.

Exactly. Why were you disagreeing with me on this earlier!?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Perdition, posted 04-10-2009 3:08 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Perdition, posted 04-10-2009 3:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 33 of 306 (505367)
04-10-2009 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by New Cat's Eye
04-10-2009 3:33 PM


Re: Storm Surge?
I must have been misinterpreting what you wrote. It seemed to me that you were arguing that since the Bible says the flood covered the whole world, then however the Hebrews may have understood that word, it really was the whole world that was flooded or the myth means nothing.

In other words, while they didn't know the extent of the world as much as they thought they did, they still came to the correct conclusion that the whole world was flooded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 3:33 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
DD2014
Junior Member (Idle past 2226 days)
Posts: 17
From: Cali, USA
Joined: 01-06-2009


Message 34 of 306 (505908)
04-19-2009 10:11 PM


I think the main point here is:

The Hebrews claim that their God flooded the whole earth and destroyed everything that was on it (excluding all on the ark). The fact is it did not happen, so God lied about flooding the earth or the Hebrews lied about God.

However you look at it God is stupid


Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by doctrbill, posted 04-20-2009 8:47 AM DD2014 has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1103 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 35 of 306 (505931)
04-20-2009 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by DD2014
04-19-2009 10:11 PM


Godidit?
Greetings DD,

Welcome to EvC.

DD2014 writes:

I think the main point here is:

The Hebrews claim that their God flooded the whole earth and destroyed everything that was on it (excluding all on the ark). The fact is it did not happen, so God lied about flooding the earth or the Hebrews lied about God.

The Hebrews claim that their God flooded the whole 'eretz and destroyed everything on the 'adamah, AKA: "dry ground." The main point here is that: Neither 'eretz nor 'adamah may be construed as a reference to the terraqueous globe; much less the planet. Thus, there is no reason to assert that "it did not happen." The Hebrews merely reported their impressions and assigned responsibility for the event to their "God" of Nature. There is no need to believe they "lied" about anything.

However you look at it God is stupid

That may be true, but we are not addressing that issue in this thread. Fact is, Creationism has evolved with the advancement of science; two steps behind perhaps, but always, eventually, catching up to agree with scientific principles involved in the mechanism of creation. Only a few hundred years ago, creationists counted the sun as a planet which orbits the earth. A few centuries from now, creationists will likely embrace Darwin as one of the greatest Christians in the history of science. The only thing which appears not to change is the bottom line of creationist argument:

"God did it."


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by DD2014, posted 04-19-2009 10:11 PM DD2014 has not yet responded

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 3577 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 36 of 306 (507067)
05-01-2009 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
04-07-2009 4:23 PM


Just out of interest:

'He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.' Job 26:6 NIV

The above comment, along with all of those in the passage that contains it, is made to point out the great power of the creator, not to inform about the physical world. The Bible is never a science textbook, and should never be taken as such.

Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 04-07-2009 4:23 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by doctrbill, posted 05-01-2009 12:03 PM ochaye has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1103 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 37 of 306 (507089)
05-01-2009 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ochaye
05-01-2009 10:04 AM


Greetings ochaye,

And thanks for your input.

Please note that I have edited to the OP to correct the date when Copernicus published his book. That particular transposition is an easy mistake because Martin Luther, a high profile critic of Copernicus, published his Bible in 1534 while Copernicus (the great nemesis of Renaissance Christianity) published in 1543. I'd hate to tell you how often I've gotten those numbers turned around.

Good thing I'm not an accountant. Yes? :D


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ochaye, posted 05-01-2009 10:04 AM ochaye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ochaye, posted 05-01-2009 12:36 PM doctrbill has responded

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 3577 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 38 of 306 (507094)
05-01-2009 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by doctrbill
05-01-2009 12:03 PM


'Greetings ochaye,

And thanks for your input.'

Thank you, and thank you.

'Please note that I have edited to the OP to correct the date when Copernicus published his book. That particular transposition is an easy mistake because Martin Luther, a high profile critic of Copernicus, published his Bible in 1534 while Copernicus (the great nemesis of Renaissance Christianity) published in 1543. I'd hate to tell you how often I've gotten those numbers turned around.

Good thing I'm not an accountant. Yes? '

You're not alone. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by doctrbill, posted 05-01-2009 12:03 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by doctrbill, posted 05-01-2009 4:29 PM ochaye has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1103 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 39 of 306 (507119)
05-01-2009 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by ochaye
05-01-2009 12:36 PM


ochaye writes:

You're not alone. :D

Thanks for the sympathy.

If you click on the "Peek" button at the bottom of this frame, you can see how I made your quote stand out.

This helps us to distinguish between quotes and original material.

Good luck; and welcome to The Forum.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ochaye, posted 05-01-2009 12:36 PM ochaye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ochaye, posted 05-01-2009 4:36 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 3577 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 40 of 306 (507120)
05-01-2009 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by doctrbill
05-01-2009 4:29 PM


Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by doctrbill, posted 05-01-2009 4:29 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1795 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 41 of 306 (507556)
05-06-2009 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
04-07-2009 4:23 PM


Kosmos
quote:
But now, it has come to my attention that there are a number of ongoing threads here in which apparently sincere and otherwise intelligent persons labor under the misapprehension that the Bible may sometime refer to planet Earth.

I wish to remind everyone that THE BIBLE NEVER EVER DOES THAT. And if one should come upon a modern version which appears to do it, he should remind himself that said version is post-Copernican at best and at worst a dishonest rendering.


Hey Doc,

Since believers are primed to convert "all the world", are you including the Greek word "kosmos" also as not meaning the planet? When we see the English word "world" in these translations, depending on how it is used or presented to us, we think planet or all inhabitants of the planet. What is a better English word if planet would not have been the intent in these cases? The Lexicon has these meanings listed. If planet is a later meaning, what is the author really saying in some cases?

1. an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2. ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:
3. the world, the universe
4. the circle of the earth, the earth
5. the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6. the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7. world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly a. the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8. any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort a. the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc) b. of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

From what I can tell the prime meaning of kosmos is good order. I'm not sure how it came to mean many of the above choices if order is the base. It appears that sometimes it is used to mean believers as noted above. I think they need to translate it that way. It gives very different meaning to John 1:29 than what is preached.

Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Here is an example from the Book of Mark which is what has primed believers to convert "all the world" or planet.

16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Given the second one, I'm not surprise they aren't preaching at zoos and animal shelters. :)

Where were they really supposed to go?

The author of John uses the term "kosmos" the most. See complete list. By context around the word we can tell that the author wasn't talking about the planet even though we may not know exactly what was meant.

3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Who did God really love? Ungodly multitudes, inhabitants of the planet, or believers?

12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

Who is Jesus really here to save? The government, inhabitants of the planet, ungodly multitudes, believers. From the usage, I would say ungodly multitudes.

If they didn't have a concept of planet, then would they have a concept of inhabitants of the planet?

Really makes me look at the book of John a bit different.

In this post entitled "The Meaning of Kosmos" the author shows that kosmos was not used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew terms you presented in the OP.

4. IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES: There is absolutely no concept
comparable to the notion of Kosmos in early Hebrew, late Hebrew,
or in Aramaic. Three terms are found over and over again in the
sacred Hebrew writings (all other cognate words are insignificant
by comparison).

Erets: meaning Earth (frequently); Land (frequently); country
(some 140 times; ground (less than 100 times). Compare Genesis
1:1, et seq.

Adamah: less than 250 times overall, meaning ground, soil, land.
Compare Gen 1:25, et seq.

Tebel: less than 40 times, meaning fruitbearing or habitable
earth. Many times in the Psalms: compare 9:8; 24:1; et seq.

5. IN THE SO-CALLED SEPTUAGINT TRANSLATION INTO GREEK: In an
all-too-brief survey I found no instances in which Kosmos was
used to translate any of the Hebrew terms listed above. The most
common translation terms seem to have been Ge (land, earth) and
Oikoumene (habitable earth or land).

Unfortunately when he got his conclusion on the use of kosmos in the NT, he seems to leave it as meaning planet. I didn't understand. I felt he fell back into tradition. Did I misunderstand?

The conclusion seems
unmistakable. Even as Paul was influenced by his Stoic teachers
and used the Greek language in (usually) thorough-going Stoic
patterns, even so the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth reported by
the School of John are framed in Stoic language. There is one
major difference, however: to the (late) Stoics the Kosmos
participated in or was of the essence of the deity; in the
teaching of Jesus reported by the School of John (as also in the
teachings of Paul of Tarsus) the Kosmos is anything but divine.
Rather, the Kosmos, like the human beings who inhabit the portion
of the Kosmos we call planet earth, has missed the mark implicit
in the act of Creation, and stands in need of remedy. It shares
the same need as its human population (each and every human,
including we ourselves) for it also stands in need of redirection
away from pointlessness and toward the point which was the
Creator's intention.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 04-07-2009 4:23 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by doctrbill, posted 05-06-2009 11:14 PM purpledawn has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1103 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 42 of 306 (507642)
05-06-2009 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by purpledawn
05-06-2009 7:47 AM


Re: Kosmos
purpledawn writes:

Since believers are primed to convert "all the world", are you including the Greek word "kosmos" also as not meaning the planet?

Greetings Dawn. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You raise many good questions and I will address as many as I can in the short time I have to do this.

Yes. Kosmos, as far as I have been able to determine, has neither global nor planetary implication. Our word "cosmetic" is based on kosmos, and rightly so in having to do with arrangement, appearance, and beauty. Our word "cosmic," also based on kosmos, is a reference to the arrangement, appearance and beauty of the heavens. But kosmos carries another suggestion which appears prominently, at the head of the listing you posted from Crosswalk (the same is found at Blue Letter Bible. I think you may like the conveniences of this particular site.

1. an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government

This word, and the trail down which it leads, provide interesting alternatives to the word "world" in a number of verses containing kosmos.

Here's a discussion you may find helpful re: the etymology of kosmos and world.

purpledawn writes:

Here is an example from the Book of Mark which is what has primed believers to convert "all the world" or planet.

16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

A similar quote, also employing the word "world," is based not on kosmos but rather oikoumene; a reference to the Roman Empire, throughout which there lived many Jews, exiled from the homeland.

Matthew writes:

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. Matthew 24:14

It is reasonable to assume that Jesus did not expect his disciples to abandon the confines of civilization and enter hostile barbarian territories. Indeed, none of them did so. In fact, oikoumene is rendered "world" in the following which hardly applies to anything outside the civilizing influence of Rome.

Luke writes:

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. Luke 2:1

This interpretation of oikoumene was acceptable to translators of the NLT who call it "Roman Empire" and of the NIV, who call it "Roman world."

purpledawn writes:

Where were they really supposed to go?

I don't wish to attempt proving it here, but I think they were expected to contact and rouse Jews living anywhere in the empire.

purpledawn writes:

If they didn't have a concept of planet, then would they have a concept of inhabitants of the planet?

Not likey, I think. :)

purpledawn writes:

Unfortunately when he got his conclusion on the use of kosmos in the NT, he seems to leave it as meaning planet. I didn't understand. I felt he fell back into tradition. Did I misunderstand?

I don't believe you misunderstood him. Based on what you presented here it seems to me that he may still be studying the question. I find it odd that in what appears to be the process of defining kosmos, he says,

quote:
There is absolutely no concept comparable to the notion of Kosmos in early Hebrew, late Hebrew, or in Aramaic.

"Absolutely" is a rather sweeping statement, and if one has not yet clarified the meaning of kosmos then it seems premature to say that there is "absolutely" nothing like it in Hebrew. Then there is the matter of how he lays out the pattern of usage:

quote:
Erets: meaning Earth (frequently); Land (frequently); country (some 140 times; ground (less than 100 times).

Why not give it all numerically, as he does with the last two?

But he doesn't - so - allow me:

AV — land (1543), earth (712), country (140), ground (98), world (4), way (3), common (1), field (1), nations (1), wilderness + 04057 (1)

Eretz is, by the Authorized Version (KJV), translated "Land" more than twice as often as it is translated "earth" and in newer versions (post Sputnik) even more so. This bit alone gives me pause to doubt his conclusions (if not his sincerity). Not only does he not reveal the numbers but by listing "earth" first he suggests that it is the dominant rendering while in fact: the relationship of "land" to "earth" in the AV is approximately the same as the relative gravity (thus influence on the tides) between moon and sun. And that 2/1 ration is climbing fast as Bible translators bring their work into compliance with the new definition of "earth."

I also have a problem with his apparently easy dismissal of the fundamental word search with what he calls,

quote:
an all-too-brief survey

I often see such brief excursions into Word Land. I hope that gentleman continues to search the scriptures. Perhaps he will, someday, understand them as well as you and I. :D


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by purpledawn, posted 05-06-2009 7:47 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by purpledawn, posted 05-07-2009 8:49 AM doctrbill has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1795 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 43 of 306 (507664)
05-07-2009 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by doctrbill
05-06-2009 11:14 PM


Re: Kosmos
Hey Doc,

Crosswalk used to be easy to navigate for meanings, but they changed their format. Thanks for the new option and the kosmos etymology.

Not to take this thread off topic, but it does give me a very different view of the verses using world for kosmos. Given Paul's letter and the range of his ministry, John 3:16 probably refers to Jews and Greeks within the empire, as opposed to people in other nations or all inhabitants on the planet.

Thanks for the explanations and thoughts.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by doctrbill, posted 05-06-2009 11:14 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by doctrbill, posted 05-07-2009 11:51 AM purpledawn has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1103 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 44 of 306 (507687)
05-07-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by purpledawn
05-07-2009 8:49 AM


Re: Kosmos
purpledawn writes:

Not to take this thread off topic, but it does give me a very different view of the verses using world for kosmos.

Don't worry. You're not going off topic. You are, in fact, going to the heart of the matter.

The obfuscation of ancient meaning leads modern readers astray. It allows dominionists to justify their thirst for conquest; and evangelists to justify their meddlesome "world mission." These annoyances have led me to this study and I am satisfied that dominionists and evangelists are being indulged, even encouraged, in wrong interpretation.

purpledawn writes:

Given Paul's letter and the range of his ministry, John 3:16 probably refers to Jews and Greeks within the empire, as opposed to people in other nations or all inhabitants on the planet.

I could not agree more.

And while we are on the subject, let me share another verse where essentially identical statements employ "kosmos" or "oikoumene" depending on who and where you read.

Here, "world" is given for "oikoumene"

quote:
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world ..." Mat 24:14

But in the following verses, "world" is given for "kosmos."

quote:
"... Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel ..." Mar 16:15

And if you like that you will love the following pair where, in the first, "world" is given for "kosmos."

quote:
"... the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world ..." Mat 4:8
But in the second, another author tells the same story employing the word "oikoumene."
quote:
"... the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world ..." Luk 4:5

This depiction of "the world" (oikoumene) should give us a clue to its intended scope; for it suggests the vast area one may see from an elevation, such as that from which Moses viewed Canaan. The maximum extent of that scope, suggested in the following verse, was not likely understood in terms of what we, in the Space Age, call "global."

quote:
"... the temple of the great goddess Diana ... whom all Asia and the world worshippeth." Act 19:27

There were only three continents identified in those days: Europe, Asia, and Africa; and in those days only north Africa was known to the "civilized" world. Africa, not fully explored until the nineteenth century was, because of that ignorance, known as: "The Dark Continent."

You may also appreciate a comment of Paul which suggests that the gospel had, already in his time (1st Century), gone into all the world (kosmos).

quote:
"... I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." Rom 1:8

Paul had not apparently traveled outside the Roman Empire, not even to visit the large Jewish community at Babylon (in Asia). This being the case, and assuming that he spoke from personal observation, we may imagine that his use of "kosmos" was equivalent in scope to the "oikoumene" which we have already seen to be synonymous with the Roman Empire.

How do you like them apples? I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this matter.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by purpledawn, posted 05-07-2009 8:49 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by purpledawn, posted 05-07-2009 3:02 PM doctrbill has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1795 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 45 of 306 (507723)
05-07-2009 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by doctrbill
05-07-2009 11:51 AM


Re: Kosmos
This is fascinating and eye opening. Actually the realization that the use of the word world is really limited to the locality or the Roman Empire, supports the idea that Jesus and Paul were preaching an end to Roman rule and God taking over that area. They were expecting God to save the Jews from the Romans, not everyone else in the world. God was to save them as he had supposedly done in the OT.

Acts 17:30-31 Paul supposedly said:

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world (oikoumenē or Roman Empire) with justice by the man he has appointed.

These make more sense now. Before they seemed exaggerations and still might be to some degree. Here Paul was blamed for stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world (oikoumenē). So really it was over the Roman Empire where he preached. (Acts 24:5)

I don't think we will ever have a Bible that translates Roman Empire, where it should be. The idea of taking over the whole planet is the basis a lot of Christian movements.

People want a correct translation as long as it doesn't interfere with the current doctrine.
Looks like I have some reading to do and notes to put in my Bible. :)


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by doctrbill, posted 05-07-2009 11:51 AM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by doctrbill, posted 05-07-2009 10:33 PM purpledawn has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019