Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: ANTICHRIST RISING!
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 6, 2013
Author: Stone
Post Date: 2013-02-06 22:48:16 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 26094
Comments: 54
(1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 46.
#4. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Please expand on this subject. The pic is not enough.
The bible is so overused....;}
The Bible presents the Truth and the Truth will set you free.
The Bible contradicts itself so often, how do you know which truth is the one that will set you free.
Please present the contradictions. I am curious what you have to offer.
Many of the things that appear to be contradictions aren't really, but the reason they aren't sometimes forces a change in our perception of things. For example, if you look in your red-letter Bible, to the most famous passage of all in John, you will see everything from John 3:10 to 3:21 is in red letters, indicating that all of it was spoken by Jesus. But actually the red letters should end at 3:12. The rest of it, including John 3:16 ("For God so loved the world...") is John theologizing, long after the fact. It is not Jesus speaking to Nicodemus because it CANNOT be, for it if were, then Jesus here contradicts other parts of the Bible by referring to things that had not happened yet as having already happened. The use of serial "Ands" in ancient texts was a way to indicate sentence ending and paragraph breaks, as ancient written Greek had no punctuation and was written in all upper case letters, and without even spaces between the words in some of the oldest manuscripts. In this writing system, "And" often functioned as a period, not a conjunction. Is it important theologically? Not really; not unless somebody has made a big deal about John 3:16 having been spoken by Jesus. But that is not Biblical. The Bible is silent on exactly who is speaking, but context requires this to be John's theologizing for the reader long after the fact, as opposed to a quote of what Jesus said to Nicodemus. If one insists that the red letters, including John 3:16, were all spoken by Jesus, then there is a hopeless contradiction in John 3:13, for if Jesus speaks these words himself to Nicodemus, at the point Jesus speaks these words, he had never yet ascended into Heaven.
Please go into a little more detail on this. I don't see a contradiction in 3:13. Trifle confusing, perhaps, but I see nothing wrong with red letters from 5 thru 8 , and 10 thru 21
Ok. I'm at a little bit of a disadvantage because I don't have a Bible with me here where I am, so I'll have to circle back and give you more details later. What I am saying here will be more general. First off, this appears in the Gospel of John. John is specific, because he numbers Jesus early miracles. Jesus' very first public miracle is before he begins his public ministry. He already has been baptized and named a few disciples, but he has not started publicly preaching yet. He attends the wedding at Cana with his mother and performs the miracle of water to wine, even though he hasn't actually started revealing his miraculous nature yet (and more particularly, even though he has not instituted the eucharist wine yet at the Last Supper) and protests to his mother that his time has not yet come. So, that's miracle one. Then he goes to Jerusalem and cleanses the Temple for the first time, but doesn't perform any public miracles yet. We know this because John later identifies a miracle as Jesus second miracle. Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night when Jesus is down at Jerusalem. So, this is the context. Jesus is not yet the miracle-man. He has preached in the public and performed one surprising sign, in Cana of Galilee (along way away). He has gained fame (or infamy) by cleansing the Temple and preaching in Jerusalem, but that's the extent of it at this point. Nicodemus is not referring to Jesus raising the dead, healing lepers, feeding the multitudes or any other such thing, because John tells us right in the text that Jesus at this point has only performed one miracle. (Cana is first, and the next miracle, specifically identified as the "second", is later.) Now then, Jesus tells Nicodemus that a man must be begotten again. (This is generally translated "born" but it really shouldn't be. Jesus isn't saying that one has to get mothered again, he is saying that one must be FATHERED again - begotten - by the Father. This is of a piece with what he later says to some of the Pharisees, that their father is the Devil. Jesus says that you have to be fathered again - by the spirit of the Father - but I digress.) The problem is that Jesus says (roughly, from memory) 'Nobody has ascended into heaven except for he who descends from heaven..." This refers to himself. There are two potential contradictions here. The first is that it appears to contradict the Genesis story of the "translation" of Enoch, and the second is that Elijah was carried off into the sky on a chariot of fire. So, we must assume that wherever Enoch and Elijah were taken off to, it wasn't heaven. (It may have been Paradise, which isn't heaven...but the actual structure of the afterlife, though revealed, is not revealed here in this part of the text, so I'll skip over it.) If we assume that Enoch and Elijah were taken to Gan Eden, which is Paradise, and actually part of Sheol (Hades) (with Gehenna - "Hell" being another part of it), then what Jesus says here is not a contradiction. But we cannot have Elijah or Enoch going to heaven where God is, because as of the time that Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, circa 31 AD, NOBODY had yet ascended into Heaven, according to Jesus, other than he himself. And that is the real contradiction. Note well that later, after Jesus has died, he specifically instructs Mary Magdelene not to touch him, because he has not yet ascended. When he does finally ascend, it is about 40 days after the Resurrection. This is the contradiction: if Jesus is speaking here, he is speaking to Nicodemus of having ALREADY ASCENDED, but scripturally, he HAD not. Jesus was a man. While he walked the earth is man's flesh, he was a man, with man's limitations. He prayed alone and performed miracles with divine power, but he "humbled himself" as a man while he lived as a man. Men do not fly. They do not ascend to Heaven. And Jesus' ascenscion was a big deal. Once he died, it was important that he not be touched before he ascended. (Why, precisely, we don't know.) There aren't any lines to suggest that Jesus, the man, was flitting back and forth between heaven and earth while he was a man. Indeed, there is much in the Bible that precludes that, for if he were doing so, he was not fully human. Moreover, he made a big deal of the ascensions after his death. Now, go and look what he said to Nicodemus in 3:10. He said something like "No man has ascended to heaven except he who descends from heaven." Well, Jesus descended from heaven, but until his death, he had not ascended into heaven himself either. That's the problem. The timeline is wrong. Jesus cannot, at this point, refer to himself as having "ascended into heaven", because he had not done so yet, and would not do so for another year or two. He had descended from heaven, as a baby, but he had not ascended to it. When he was alone in the desert, he was fasting and alone. There is not one sliver of a trace in any of the Gospels to suggest that Jesus ever left the earth in any way until he ascended after his death, and it theologically important (if we here true man), that he did not. So, if this is Jesus speaking to Nicodemus, right at the very beginning of Jesus' public miracles, this is nonsensical. He is speaking of nobody, for at that point Jesus himself had descended from heaven, but he had not ascended into heaven. John 3:10 can only be true after Jesus' resurrection and ascension. It was not yet true when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus. And when Jesus ascended both times (right after his death, and then after 40 days for good), there were witnesses and people to whom he commented. The fact that he was ascending to heaven was a big deal, as it proved his divinity. But the Gospels are silent, and theologically the thought of a pre-resurrection ascension of Jesus, unknown to the Apostles (none recorded an account of it), wou be a real problem. That's why 3:10 has to be black-letter, John speaking theologically after the fact. Otherwise we have Jesus saying something to Nicodemus that is not true, and referring in the past tense to something that has not happened yet. That's why we know Jesus didn't say that, and how we know that it is John's theology, looking back after the fact and teaching us. What follows is of a piece. There is no logical basis to just rip 3:10 out of the text and put it in black letters, then to have Jesus resume speaking. John's theology is very dense and well-developed, and he has used this point to make it. Given that "all scripture is God breathed" we can certainly take it all as inspired by God, but we really can't logically take the language spoken from John 3:10 and onward in that section as coming from Jesus' own mouth to Nicodemus before the crucifixion, for the reasons stated. "For God so loved the world..." is brilliant, black-letter text.
Interesting, but i can't really type much on an ipad, so i'll type more L8tr. Not that i see it as central or that important, but in John 2:23, it says "when they saw the miracles he did". I think john's numbering was numbering the miracles in gallilee. So i'll look at it a bit more, but i still think it's all red letter in the range i said before, but i'll explain when i can type freely.
Could be, as far as the numbering of miracles goes. John 2:23 does indeed say that. It is strange for John to number the miracle at Cana number one and the healing of the man's child as number 2, and then just lump all of the public miracles done in Jerusalem as an unnumbered mass in between. I agree that considering the miracles in Galilee as one and two, allows the text to stand logically, but it sure is a weird way to do it. I ate my first hamburger in a McDonalds in Farmington, Michigan in 1967. I then grew up, moved all over the country and ate thousands of hamburgers in thousands of different places, including a hundred McDonalds. 30 years later, while travelling, I ate my second hamburger in Farmington, Michigan. While this is true, it's a nonsensical way to write about events. But I do agree that it "removes" the apparent conflict concerning the order of miracles (while leaving behind a distinct suspicion, for the reasons stated above, that the text has perhaps not been transmitted to us in the original order, that perhaps something was transposed at some point.) But there isn't anything one can do with the problem of Jesus apparently speaking of having already ascended when speaking with Nicodemus. Jesus did not ascend until after his death, which is a year or two in the future at the point he was speaking. The contradiction disappears completely when we understand this text as John theologizing. That 3:10 starts with an "and", which is one of the "punctuation marks" in an ancient language that had neither punctuation nor even upper- and lower-case letters, ANDINWHICHTHELETTERSWEREOFTENALLRUNTOGETHERASONESENTENCE, helps us see where to divide the text. It is a logical dividing point for John to theologize.
Well, i read john 3:16 again and i realize i don't have a problem with 16 to 21 being john. Perhaps a continuation of what he started from john 1:1 to 1:14. I'd just always thought those were red letter words so jumped right in to defend that, lol. But i'll say more about 3:13 tomorrow when i can type better.
I agree that the latter part, of being lifted up, etc., could be Jesus directly. The trouble is that the linking sentence contains a temporal contradiction that really does not work, and one cannot in any literary sense just insert a sentence in a dialogue like that, not from Jesus, and then resume with Jesus. In a sense, this presents for us a different sort of theological test. In the original Greek manuscripts, they're all written in capital letters (there weren't lower case Greek letters at the time). There is no punctuation at all, and the lettersallruntogetherinonelongpage. "And" ("KAI", in Greek) often served as a sentence break, not a conjunction. The theological test is this: there are no "red letter words" in ancient manuscripts, no quotation marks, etc. In the 19th Century, publishers began to use red ink to demarcate the words of Jesus, because they could. Of course, the choice of what words to put in quotation marks and what words to mark red are purely an editorial choice, that can only be made by the logic of the text itself. The actual Scripture doesn't have anything like that in it. So, given that all "red letter text", and punctuation, and capitalization, is purely a matter of publisher's discretion, does it have any exegetic value at all? "Red letter words" are a 19th Century tradition, not an ancient doctrine of Scripture. Jesus did say (quoting Moses) "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God". One could take this to mean that the MOST AUTHORITATIVE parts of Scripture are those words spoken directly by God. This is, in fact, the hermeneutic that I myself use. There is a hierarchy of authority in Scripture itself, according to Scripture, and various traditions have always thought there was. The Jews, for example, have never believed and never taught that every word in their Scriptures, what we call the "Old Testament", is of equal authority. Indeed, their doctrine teaches firmly the opposite. According to the Jews, the Torah, the Five Books of Moses, is absolutely supreme, for in the Torah ALONE are ALL of the laws that came from God. Thus, the Torah ALONE is the source of ALL divine law. After that, God spoke through the Prophets, which they call the Nevi'im (and which, in Jewish tradition, does NOT include the Prophet Daniel), but all that God ever did through the mouths of the Prophets was re-emphasize the law. There is NO NEW LAW in the Prophets, other than a summary of the "Law of Kings", which was understood has having been almost by way of punishment for having rejected the direct rule of God, and then the details of the construction of the new Temple as seen by the prophet during the exile. Other than that, although the Prophets - the Nevi'im - contain words of God through the prophets, but all of those words are exhortations to follow what was already revealed through the Torah. Thus, the Nevi'im hold second place as exhortatory, but are NOT a source of law. The Torah ALONE is the source of law. And then finally are the writings, the Kethuvim. The Psalms were considered the highest authority among these, for they contained prayers that sometimes contained direct words of God, or prophesies, but everything else (and this is most of the material in the Old Testament) is explanatory, historical, interesting, but not strictly necessary, and certainly in absolute, strict, complete subordination to the Prophets, which themselves are in complete subordination to the Torah. This hierarchy of Jewish authority in Scripture, with the Law first and the Prophets second, the Psalms third and the rest of the Writings very quadrenary in authority, is reflected by Jesus himself. When Jesus says "the Law and the Prophets", referring to the Hebrew Scriptures, he is using a Jewish expression: "Torah and Nevi'im", which does NOT mean "the Hebrew Bible", it means "the Pentateuch, and certain Prophets". When Jesus quotes the Law, he quotes the Torah. When he quotes the Prophets, it is for exhortation or prediction of a Prophet. When he quotes the writings, he quotes only parts of certain Psalms. Essentially, Jesus ratified the Jewish hierarchy of Scripture and applied it. And the key to the whole thing is that all of the LAW that came from the mouth of God is in the Torah (alone), and the rest of the words from God are contained in parts of the prophets. The Psalms and the rest of the Kethuvim have very, very little "words of God" (directly) in them. So, when Jesus says "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God", this actually has meaning in a Jewish context. And if one carefully prepares a "Red Letter Old Testament", in which the words actually spoken by GOD in the Old Testament, as opposed to recorded, one discovers that all of the Law is in the Torah, and is generally repeated a couple of times at least, and that the Prophets exhort the Israelites to follow the Law of the Torah, but that the Writings have very little of that in it. And we find that Jesus, for his part, points at the Law and the Prophets, and specifically to the words of God. Make a red letter OLD Testament, and it makes the red letter NEW Testament clearer. It also makes some of the struggles between denominations weaken. For example: the difference between Catholic/Orthodox bibles and post-Reformation era Protestant Bibles is that certain books of the Old Testament are not included in the post-Reformation era Protestant Bibles. All of these writings are among the Kethuvim - the Writings - and are of only fourth-degree authority anyway, whether they are included or not. Say this, though, and people will start quoting Paul, who said "every word is God- breathed". (Perhaps every word is, but Jesus certainly exalted the AUTHORITY of the words of the Torah and Prophets above the rest of it). So, does it MATTER? As a matter of tradition, it does. In fact, it matters as much as the "red letters" of the New Testament. Are "red letter words" more authoritative, or are they not? Is the fact that Jesus said it, or appears to say it, more authoritative than if John said it? Does the red print make a difference or doesn't it? I myself believe that it absolutely makes a difference, because Jesus was the Son of God, and handed down law from the Father, but nobody else was. Within the Apostles there was a hierarchy of authority: Peter was first, made so by Jesus. The 12 were higher than the 72. And dead last in authority of the Apostles, by his own admission, was Paul. So, in places the writings of the Apostle Paul, least of the Apostles, appears to contradict the writings of the Apostle James, brother of the Lord and bishop of Jerusalem. Paul wrote more, but James writes with greater authority. Where Paul appears to contradict James, who has the greater authority? By the text of the Bible itself, including Paul's own pen, James would (for Paul is least). Of course, one could argue that there is not really a conflict. I think that's generally true, but I note that the later traditions that have grown up around the Bible, such as the red letters, and the exaltation of Paul's writings, can create conflicts where none need exist. One example is the one we've been discussing. Jesus simply cannot say to Nicodemus that he HAS ascended into heaven (as in "already ascended"), because that is false. As of the time of that speaking, Jesus had NEVER YET ascended into Heaven. The Son is divine, and perhaps went back and forth to earth in other times as a spirit, but Jesus, the man, was a man, true man, and once he was conceived and born, he never once ascended to heaven until after his crucifixion. It is impossible for Jesus to speak of himself to Nicodemus as one who had already ascended to heaven. And it is the fact of that verb, that past-tense verb, that we know for certain that it isn't Jesus speaking to Nicodemus there, but John speaking to us. Does that make a difference? Does it make a difference that it isn't red-letter? It does to me, because Jesus said that man lives on "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God", and those words were inspired by God, but they proceeded out of the pen of John. Of course, everything that John said is very kosher and orthodox, and true. Still, if one thinks there's a difference in authority between red letters and the rest of the New Testament, then one is acknowledging that what Jesus said trumps everything else (in BOTH testaments actually) that seems to contradict what anybody else said. It really makes no difference in the passage of John, but it DOES make a HUGE difference when we come to the real fundamental conflict that tradition and Christian civil war has reared up for us to deal with, which is this: do you have to do anything to eventually get into Heaven after judgment? By this, I mean: do you have to be a good person. Do you have to do certain things (such as love your neighbor as yourself, give alms, care for the poor), and NOT do other things (such as blaspheme the holy spirit, commit murder and adultery, steal) in order to pass judgment and get to heaven. Or do you simply have to believe that Jesus was the Son of God? Is the latter bare belief SUFFICIENT to pass judgment? Some will shout YES! And they will cite Paul. Others will shout NO! And they will cite James. Both sides will square off over the idea of "works" (and not generally understand the legal term that Paul was using - "mitzvot" - which refers to a specific KIND of works under the Jewish law). Paul and James appear to flatly contradict each other (they don't, really, when "mitzvot" is understood - Paul actually says that you have to do certain things and not do other things in order to pass judgment as well - in this Paul seems to contradict PauL!) Jesus answers the question decisively. He says that you have to believe in him. He then explains that to "believe in him" is to "follow him", and that to "follow him" is to "keep his commandments", and he asks point blank "what good does it do you to say you follow me if you don't keep my commandments? In other words, if you say you believe in Jesus but you break the laws that he handed down and don't do them, you are not actually following Jesus, and therefore on Jesus' own terms, you don't really "believe" in him at all. So, James and Paul seem to disagree, and it's confusing. But the red letter words put the argument completely to bed: whether you call them "works" or "acts" or "deed" or "faith" - whatever you call them - to believe in Jesus requires that you do the things he said to do, and not do what he forbade. If you do otherwise, you may think you have faith, and cry out "Lord, Lord", but you don't have faith at all and he doesn't know you. Jesus is a lot harsher than Paul is read to be, and the path is a lot harder to find and the gate more constricting according to Jesus than according to many readings of Paul. Those red-letter words matter. The question is, where the red-letter words appear to conflict with anything else in the Bible, do the red-letter words have supreme authority or not. And the answer to that, actually, is YES. YES, what Jesus says does have supreme, absolute authority over everything in the OLD Testament, and everything ELSE in the New Testament. Everything that Paul writes, or Moses, or Jeremiah, or Peter, or James or Jude or Luke or John, or Isaiah - everything else - is subordinate to the words that proceed out of the mouth of God. And the words that came out of Jesus' mouth are those words, directly from God's physical lips. So, the red-letter words matter, and we are right to try to figure out what they are. In this particular case, concerning Jesus' dialogue with Nicodemus, it doesn't ultimately matter whether these words are "red letter" or not, because what John writes either way is so completely in accord with everything else Jesus said that it is not material. Where the rubber really meets the road, though, is the question: What do I have to DO as a Christian. And the answer to that is: (1) You have to believe that Jesus was the ONLY begotten Son of God (2) You have to be baptized. (No modalities are given.) (3) You have to obey all of Jesus' commandments, and teach all of them - for the one who teaches men to disregard the least of these commandments will be called least in the reign of heaven, (4) You have to do unto others as you would have them do unto you (think about that for a minute, and you will realize that Jesus abolished coercive slavery) (5) You have to love your neighbor as yourself (and everybody is your neighbor) (6) You have to love God above all. (7) You cannot murder. (And Jesus speaks of being "begotten", which is the fatherly principle of reproduction, which fits with the Torah and establishes life as beginning at conception: abortion is murder and must be prohibited). (8) You cannot commit adultery (And Jesus speaks of lusting after a woman as committing adultery with her in the heart, so pornography and masturbation are prohibited) - which means chastity. (9) You can marry, for life, and you can never get divorced other than if the other spouse commits lewdness (in other words, spousal adultery may be a grounds for divorce) (10) You cannot lie. (11) You cannot pretend that there are different degrees of truth. Therefore, you cannot swear out oaths, for that pretends that there are different degrees of truth, but there are not and you must not pretend there are, for that itself is a lie. (12) You must pay your taxes, even if the government is evil. (13) More generally, you must liquidate all of your excess wealth, not store it up, and distribute it to the poor, especially poor Christians, your brothers and sisters in Christ. (14) You must offer divine service to the Father, alone (and not to Jesus, and not to the Holy Spirit or any other being). Your prayers should be directed to the Father. You may offer veneration, adoration, worship (proskinesis) to the Son, but the Son says to offer divine service to the Father alone. The Son prays to the Father, and commands those who follow him to pray to the Father. Therefore, we must not cling to traditions that do otherwise, and obey Jesus. (15) You must honor your parents and economically provide for them in their infirmity. (16) You must cease sinning completely and make yourself free from sin first before teaching others. (17) You must fast and pray to the Father. (18) You must not demand interest on money lent to your brothers and sisters in Christ; if you have excess and they ask, you must lend it to them, and you must not prosecute them if they fail to repay. You must forgive them. It's actually a terrifying list of commandments, the some total of which mean that if you are a Christian, you will not have wealth in this world, at least not for very long, and you will be very chaste and monogamous, for life. The only way to get away from that iron law is to assert that the red-letter words are NOT more authoritative than the other words of Scripture, because there is a way to read Paul that makes it all a LOT easier. So, that is finally where everything is staked: do the red-letter words matter more? The implications of understanding that they do (and yes, they do), are profound. Nicodemus is a good proving ground, because this is the first apparent contradiction in the red letter words, and resolving the contradiction in favor of one of the most beloved statements in Scripture being "black letter words" runs headlong into a strongly held human tradition. Reading them all as red-letter words forces an interpretation of "ascended" that departs from what the rest of the Bible reveals. Fiercely defending the red-letter words here, because it is important, means that the red letter words later, where Jesus speaks clearly and directly about everything that a man must DO, those words ALSO have to be taken as authoritative...and that means that "just believing" ain't enough, because Jesus, in red-letter words, says that believing is following, and following is obeying, and obeying is doing. It matters a lot how we resolve this.
Here i am again with not much time and only anipad. I'll never catch up with my comments. I'll try to type briefly later on about john 3, as i mentioned last night. I'll finish your post from today also, but i will interject, when it says 'by every word from gods mouth' i take that to be directly spoken word, from god to us, not written word from scripture.
I agree, but I note that, personal revelations aside, the only way we know what Jesus said, or his Father before him, is by Scripture. So, there's Scripture that says stuff, and there's Scripture that says that it's quoting God. John's Gospel, for example stands or falls as a unit. It is very difficult to argue that John got Jesus' words right, but the rest of what he wrote wasn't also inspired by God. Where it gets interesting is in the Epistles. Paul has a huge influence, but Paul has only a handful of quotes of Christ, and a few more quotes of the Torah. The rest is Paul stating precepts which he says came from the Holy Spirit. So, Paul is acting as a Prophet. Personal revelation to us individually may come from the mouth of God. But it also may come from the mouth of somebody pretending to be God, so it has to be tested. But what shall one test it against? The conundrum is so terrible, and could be applied to ALL scriptures of whatever religion. Fortunately, God left tangible signs outside of the Scripture to prove that Jesus was the real deal, and we can steady ourselves with those and know, when we plunge deep into Scripture, that we're dealing with a man who was the real deal.
I agree with you, regarding His words. They come from several sources. Btw, i hold pauls writings in great regard. He laid out the whole plan, as received, and is second to no other man in any regard as far as i'm concerned. Though he wouldn't approve us arguing which of them is the primo apostle so let's not! I'm reading some John now.
Biff are you reading John's gospel or his epistles. Either way awesome reading. How long have you been reading the Bible?
I've probably been studying it for 14 or so out of the last thirty years. Not much for the last decade or more.
Been there...welcome back.
There are no replies to Comment # 46. End Trace Mode for Comment # 46.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestANTICHRIST RISING!
#6. To: redleghunter (#4)
#7. To: mcgowanjm (#6)
The bible is so overused....;}
#9. To: redleghunter (#7)
The Bible presents the Truth and the Truth will set you free.
#11. To: mininggold (#9)
The Bible contradicts itself so often, how do you know which truth is the one that will set you free.
#13. To: redleghunter (#11)
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#13)
#17. To: Biff Tannen (#16)
(Edited)
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
#20. To: Biff Tannen (#19)
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
#22. To: Biff Tannen (#21)
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
#25. To: Biff Tannen (#24)
when it says 'by every word from gods mouth' i take that to be directly spoken word, from god to us, not written word from scripture.
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
#30. To: Biff Tannen (#27)
I'm reading some John now.
#45. To: redleghunter (#30)
How long have you been reading the Bible?
#46. To: Biff Tannen (#45)
I've probably been studying it for 14 or so out of the last thirty years. Not much for the last decade or more.
Replies to Comment # 46.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]