[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Bible Study See other Bible Study Articles Title: The Origins of the King James Bible Source: Smithsonian URL Source: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart ... -james-bible-180956949/?no-ist Published: Oct 17, 2015 Author: Erin Blakemore Post Date: 2015-10-17 05:19:05 by Willie Green Keywords: None Views: 23160 Comments: 83 A handwritten draft of the world's most famous bible has been discovered in England When an archive yields an unexpected discovery, it's usually cause for celebration. But when that discovery involves the world's most famous bible, scholarly excitement mounts to ecstastic levels. The earliest known draft of the King James Bible has been unearthed at the University of Cambridge, writes Jennifer Schuessler for The New York Times, and it’s being lauded as a critical find for historians. The draft was discovered by Jeffrey Alan Miller, an American scholar conduct in the Cambridge archives. It contains the handwriting of dozens of authors, dating from 1604 to 1608. That handwriting is a crucial find, Schuessler writes, because it reveals how they translated and assembled the text. "There's a strong desire to see the King James Bible as a uniform object, and a belief that it's great because of its collaborative nature," Miller tells Schuessler. "It was incredibly collaborative, but it was done in a much more complicated, nuanced, and at times individualistic way than we've ever really had good evidence to believe." Forty-seven translators and scholars produced the King James Bible, which was first published in 1611. The project dates back to 1604, when King James I decided a new version could help consolidate political power, writes NPR's Barbara Bradley Hagartay. A popular Puritan bible had downplayed the divine right of kings — greatly offending James — and James manipulated different Christian sects until they agreed to produce a different translation. The result became an incredible, long-lasting success. The King James Bible has influenced language, literature and culture for more than 400 years. In the Times Literary Supplement, Miller writes that his discovery suggests that the text may be "far more a patchwork of individual translations — the product of individual translators and individual companies working in individual ways — than has ever been properly recognized." Perhaps there is always more to discover after all. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 77. #9. To: Willie Green (#0) God translated the KJV as promised. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   8:35:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: A K A Stone (#9) (Edited) God translated the KJV as promised. You're a KJV-Onlyist? This is why I use the KJV for discussion purposes. I've never heard of an NIV-Onlyist, or an ESV-Onlyist, but KJV-Onlyism, KJV- inspired-translationism, is a thing. When you say "God translated the KJV", do you mean by that that the KJV-English is itself inspired, such that it, in the English, has the full authority of God behind it, that it is the "real" text of Scripture, in English, as inspired by God? There are KJV-Onlyists who are "inspired translationists" who believe that the KJV itself, is a direct revelation of the Scripture in God-inspired English. That among the manuscripts, God chose the TRUE manuscript, and that God inspired the translators to write the English that perfectly says in English the true inspired textual meaning of God. This is the strongest form of KJV-Onlyism, because it would mean that when one finds an ancient manuscript in Greek, one can compare that Greek manuscript to the English of the KJV and realize if that Greek manuscript is true Scripture or is a copy that was damaged in some uninspired way. Pure, full-strength KJV-Onlyism is my favorite kind, because it means that all of the various manuscripts in various languages that preceded it, with all of the gaps and confusion, were completely settled by God, for God provided a new, complete, perfect, inspired set of Scriptures, in English, in the age of the printing press, to REPLACE the confusion from the welter of ancient sources and languages. Inspired-KJVism means that one need not study Latin or Greek, or engage in any archaeology, to know PRECISELY what God intended Scripture to be, for he revealed the entirety of Scripture in English at the beginning of the 17th Century, in the age of the printing press. So, to fully know God's inspired Scripture, one must learn English, for the best, the most accurate and the most complete revelation of Scripture occurred in English, in 1611, with the publication of the KJV. The editorial choices of the KJV translators and publishers were all inspired by God, making the KJV 1611 version perfect - THE revealed word of God. Presumably you would accept an updating of spelling as acceptable, but not punctuation, because punctuation adds or subtracts meaning, so God conveyed the perfect punctuation. I do not believe KJV-Only Inspired-translationism myself, but I certainly prefer it as a basis for discussion, for it cuts through all of the fog and eliminates consultation of any other text. There was no standard dictionary of English in 1611, so a little bit of knowledge of archaic forms is necessary (thou vs. you vs. ye, for example, or "suffer the little children..."), but that's easily handled. KJV-Onlyism has the virtue of reductionist clarity. It establishes a set of rules, and a limitative text. It takes Hebrew, Greek and Latin off the table: the English was directly inspired by God. It takes all discussions about ancient manuscripts off the table: the English was inspired by God, so therefore ancient manuscripts can be compared to the English of the KJV to determine whether or not the ancient manuscripts are accurate or in error. It removes modern pedantism, because there was no dictionary in 1611, so the words mean what they meant in common usage then, not esoteric meanings that came later. There are no footnotes, which means that nothing was added. But there was versification, which means that God established the versification as part of the inspired scripture. Moreover, there are names to the books, so the NAMES are also inspired - by calling a Gospel "Mark" in the KJV, God has revealed that Mark was the author. Therefore, there is no need to waste time debating who wrote it: God revealed that with the KJV. Likewise, the canon was definitively revealed by God with the 1611 translation: the revealed texts, plus the apocrypha. Would you consider the original translators notes to be inspired also? What is the limit of inspiration? Is it everything that is within the cover of the original publication, first printing? I like that best of all, because now we have an authoritative set of texts, limited by direct divine inspiration, with specific words, punctuation and spelling. How far does your KJV-Onlyism go? As far as you go, I am eager to go farther. In its highest, best form, KJV-Onlyism gives us the only text certain to be complete and point perfect, right down to the period. The original printing of 1611 IS God's revealed word in the most perfect incarnation of KJV-Onlyism. And that means that all discussion shifts away from archaeology, manuscripts and translation to the literal words themselves, exactly as they appear on the page. This approach appeals very much to my lawyer's mind, because it closes the canon and gives a definitive text. And that takes away everybody's wiggle room, just like with the Constitution. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   9:29:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: Vicomte13 (#10) Getting ready head out. So I will keep it short and simple. God said he would have his word translated. I'm paraphrasing. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   9:33:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: A K A Stone (#11) God said he would have his word translated. Yes, what I'm asking you is this: Do you think that the KJV translation itself is Scripture, inspired by God. Put differently, does the KJV have greater authority than an ancient manuscript such as the Codex Vaticanus or the Massoretic Text, does it have the same authority, or does it have lesser authority? Your answer determines the degree to which I need to limit myself to the KJV EXCLUSIVELY when having discussions with you. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   10:00:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: Vicomte13 (#12) Do you think that the KJV translation itself is Scripture, inspired by God. Put differently, does the KJV have greater authority than an ancient manuscript such as the Codex Vaticanus or the Massoretic Text, does it have the same authority, or does it have lesser authority? I don't think the KJV is of greater authority than the text on which it was based. I think they would be equal. I think that the Holy Spirit worked behind the scenes as God promised and no matter what the King wanted Gods word came out. As it did in other languages for other people. If someone says that they are intrepreting the Bible from the ancient texts such as Codex Vaticanus or whatever. If they say the King James is wrong and their intrepretation is correct. I'll go with the King James and not some other fellow telling me something contrary. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   14:18:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: A K A Stone (#19) I don't think the KJV is of greater authority than the text on which it was based. I think they would be equal. If someone says that they are intrepreting the Bible from the ancient texts such as Codex Vaticanus or whatever. If they say the King James is wrong and their intrepretation is correct. I'll go with the King James and not some other fellow telling me something contrary. Ok. "Equal" here means that you think that the KJV has the same authority as the particular ancient manuscripts upon which it was based. And because you think that the KJV translation was itself inspired, you think it has greater authority than any other English translation. Others will debate you on this, but I won't, because the debate will be fruitless. I'm fine using the KJV, alone. The original KJV translation included the Apocrypha, so I assume that you accept that the Apocrypha are good for reading and instruction, but that no new doctrine should be asserted from those books, yes? In effect, this means that for our discussions, we don't refer to the Apocrypha. That's fine by me, for discussion purposes. I see that you will not accept any argument that contradicts the KJV language if it is based on a different translation of the texts, so the KJV English text is definitive. Ok. This narrows the field to a single text we all can use. I can accept that for discussion purposes. My acceptance doesn't mean that I believe the things I accept them - it means that for our discussions I will only use the KJV as Scripture, I won't use the so-called "Apocrypha", and I won't resort to Greek or Latin or Hebrew. We've narrowed the field to one text, in English. This is why I like KJV-Onlyism: it greatly simplifies discussion. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   14:46:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: Vicomte13 (#22) and I won't resort to Greek or Latin or Hebrew. If you know those languages then use them. Or if you trust the translations then use them. I just don't know those languages. So I can only know what people say those languages say. So I would have to accept that someone is telling me the truth when I don't know if they are or aren't. I understand English. No one has been able to show me anything in the King James that makes me think it is contradictory or incorrect. I have seen things in the NIV that seem to contradict other verses. So I just stick to the KJV because that is what I understand. So if someone quote A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   17:07:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: A K A Stone (#30) (Edited) No one has been able to show me anything in the King James that makes me think it is contradictory or incorrect. I'll show you several things in the KJV that are contradictory, but those contradictions are in the Hebrew also, so the translation is not the issue, but the words of Scripture themselves. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   17:12:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: Vicomte13 (#32) I'll show you several things in the KJV that are contradictory, but those contradictions are in the Hebrew also, so the translation is not the issue, but the words of Scripture themselves. Do you speak Hebrew? Oh you don't. So someone told you it said something and you believed them. Or you read it somewhere and you believed it. I haven't seen any contradictons or incorrect things in the Bible. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   19:10:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: A K A Stone (#33) Oh you don't. So someone told you it said something and you believed them. Or you read it somewhere and you believed it. I haven't seen any contradictons or incorrect things in the Bible. I am going to show you plenty of contradictions in the KJV. That way we don't have to speak Hebrew. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   19:26:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: Vicomte13 (#34) I want to see these contradictions. ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-08   15:34:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: ebonytwix (#39) Alright. Then I'll point out some that are glaring, and some that are subtle. There are plenty of things that are not contradictions internal to the Bible, but that contradict with Christian traditions. Those AREN'T contradictions - they're examples of the differences between the written tradition and the oral traditions. Here, I'll stick to the actual contradictions. One of the most glaring is the fact that Abraham used the name YHWH and referred to God as YHWH. And yet later, when YHWH is speaking to Moses, He says that he is revealing his name, YHWH, for the first time, that Abraham knew him as El Elyon, but not as YHWH. This is a flat contradiction. The contradiction exists in Hebrew too, but the Hebrew lets you sidle away from it by the fact that the name YHWH is also a verb tense of the verb to be. And if you do that in the Hebrew, you know you're taking some leaps to try to avoid a contradiction that is really there. In English there isn't a way past it though:it's a contradiction. God said to Moses that Abraham didn't know his name YHWH, but Abraham used that very name, and even named a place "YHWH". It's a contradiction. Does that fact MATTER, that it's a contradiction? It matters to "every word dictated" literalists, yes. Doesn't matter to Catholics and Orthodox, though. THere's one. I didn't get the citations because I don't have a Bible in my hand where I am. This is not hard stuff to find, though, if you know your way around the text. Just open Genesis, page to the sections regarding Abraham, and read the story. Note each interaction with God. Use a highlighter. Note that Abraham calls God YHWH, names a place YHWH-something (and the text tells us, helpfully, that it's still called that "to this day"). Now skip over the story of Jacob and Joseph to the story of Moses, early in Exodus, and read Moses' encounter with YHWH in the burning bush. Chapter and verse are not part of Scripture. The stories are. It's better for you to read the stories, so that you have the fuller context. I'm going to restrict my posting to answering you, because you asked. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-08   18:55:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: Vicomte13 (#42) So why does such contradictions exist? Is it written by two different people and does it invalidate the Bible? ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-08   22:10:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: ebonytwix (#45) So why does such contradictions exist? Is it written by two different people and does it invalidate the Bible? To what extent does a contradiction "invalidate" something? I would say that only the thing that is contradicted is rendered unclear. Did Abraham know the name YHWH or not? Unknown. The Scripture clearly shows that he did, but then says he didn't. So, as to the question itself: did Abraham know the name YHWH or not, the correct answer is: we don't know, because the Bible contradicts. But then we can go on and ask: Does it MATTER? And the answer to the question itself is that it does not. It makes no difference to anything of importance about the Biblical story whether Abraham knew or did not know the specific name "YHWH", that name, versus the others, doesn't make any difference to us in our way of thinking about God. All that the contradiction does is create a massive impediment to those who would make an idol of the Bible by claiming that IT is letter perfect, written by God, and that therefore people can suspend their own reason, and ignore the evidence of their own eyes, ears, hands and minds in favor of what somebody else says about an old book. I think that the old book is very important, because it's the only place where what God said and did at key times in history is recorded. That remains true even if the factual details of the book are not totally reliable. What THAT means, for example, is that people who believe in Young Earth Creationism and people who believe in Very Old Earth Directed Evolution, should not be excommunicating each other regarding God. To use a famous quote: "The Bible teaches how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go." Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-09   11:29:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: Vicomte13 (#47) Well, usually people will held up standards of truth to have no perceived invalidating information (which is usually found in a contradiction as you said, or a lack of source, ect) since truth is supposed to be wholly objective and flat out there. With contradictions, it puts out a rise of suspicion of the legitimacy of the source since it made an error, especially the legitimacy of other texts as well. Many people in America who are Christians certainly believe the Bible is perfect, and the Bible itself states that I believe. So did we really evolve from monkeys or was Adam and Eve all a metaphor for us to understand more? By the way, I agree with you completely, just up for a little debate :) ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-09   17:54:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: ebonytwix (#48) Christians certainly believe the Bible is perfect, and the Bible itself states that I believe The Bible doesn't state that about the Bible, because the Bible never references itself. Within the Scriptures there are references to "Scripture", but of course "scripture" just means "writing". Undoubtedly it referred to writings that Jews and Christians considered to be sacred, set apart, holy, but there was never, and still is not, full agreement on what set of writings really ARE "THE Scriptures" - books are in or out of different canons. And even within a given canonical tradition, there is not agreement on which ancient manuscripts are the most reliable. Every single ancient manuscript is handwritten - the printing press wasn't invented until the 1400s - and no two ancient manuscripts are alike. There are differences between every one of them. So, what exactly is "Scripture"? And what does "perfect" mean? The real answer to the whole question is this: don't make idols out of books and specific pieces of paper, or languages: the letter kills but the spirit gives life. God had a pretty short set of GENERAL PRINCIPLES for guiding human life, so that humans could be healthy and happy and harmoniously fill their role of world dominion. And that is what the Bible is: a collection of histories - of what God said, the "pointed out path" - pointed out by God - THAT is what "Torah" really means. It doesn't mean "law", it means "pointed out path" - the marked path through the howling desert for the safety of the shepherd and his flock. Step off the path and you might survive, but then again, you might not. So here's the path. "Law", especially in the minds of Gentile half-pagans, is a think that is ENFORCED, it is the RIGHT to power, to dominate. But the path pointed out by God for us is that path through a dangerous desert pointed out by a loving Father. The Law punishes. But the real world hurts and harms because of its nature, and the Pointed Out Path is the way THROUGH the world with all of its risks and pitfalls, so that one arrives safely with one's sheep at the oasis. Even the mindset of God and men is different. Men restlessly seek power, dominion and the power to judge. And they twist God into that image, because God judges. He DOES judge, but everything that happens -for good or ill - is his judgment. He doesn't think like us. The Bible is a RECORD of some of the things that God said, the important ones. God repeats himself, a lot, because in the Scriptures he is talking to a bunch of different people at different times, and he is speaking to them in their condition - and he knows their hearts - so sometimes the things he said that are recorded really had MEANING to the one hearing it, but those bystanders also hearing it heard words without the inner context of the target hearer, and formed their own conclusion. "None comes to the Father except through me" is true, but it doesn't mean "Nobody but non-Catholic Christians makes it into the City of God". Men STRAIN to turn a written set of oral histories into a LAW book, because they crave LAW, COMMAND, AUTHORITY. Then, having a book, they put verse numbers and chapters into it that God never put there, and try to turn a loose oral history, written down, into a tight set of legal principles and statutes. The Pharisees did not less, and Jesus didn't like them much. Truth is, the oral histories written down convey a GENERAL MESSAGE from God, a GENERAL SET OF PRINCIPLES, and give a GENERAL view of whence we came (from God) and whence we are going (back to God), and then a few very specific things that really, REALLY make God angry. This means that people have to be guided by the Holy Spirit in all things, and just have the written-down oral history as a BACKSTOP. If the "Holy" Spirit is urging you to go on a tear of killing people, you know that's not really the HOLY Spirit doing that, because God spoke long and loud about that. And so forth. The Bible can lead you to God, to walk on the pointed-out-path, but it can lead you away from God pretty fast too, if you read it as a lawbook and read into it that YOU are the law enforcer. You're not. No matter who you are. And you never, ever will be. If that is what you crave, then the path you're walking is not the Pointed- Out Path from God, Crave something different instead. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-09   18:34:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: Vicomte13 (#50) >A mathematical hypothesis is refuted by a single counterexample. Life isn't math. People say life, the way it's calculated through science, ect, is very related to Math. ___ Otherwise, yeah, I agree with you. Some questions though, why does God tend to repeat Himself? And how does one know the Spirit one feel's in their heart is really of God? Didn't the Bible say that men's heart deceive themselves.. I'm not sure which context that was in. ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-10   3:45:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #71. To: ebonytwix (#66) People say life, the way it's calculated through science, ect, is very related to Math. Math is a language devised by people to describe the things we see. To the extent we have made the language useful, it accurately describes things. To the extent that the language of math ceases to describe what is real, the math simply devolves into a human mental game that is unmoored from reality. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-10   11:27:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #75. To: Vicomte13 (#71) Haha not spirits, but rather, when I pray to God and I feel a voice in my heart - I cannot explain it, but it feels gentle and guides me. It doesn't contradict the Bible, but sometimes it answers my questions whether or not the people I know intentions are bad (for my own safety) or their character in my personal relationship with them. It's not words, but it's feelings and guidance. Also, for some reason when I talk about God or I am reminded about His love, I feel cold, but in a loving way. I don't know why though, I hope there isn't some confusion or miscommunication on my part. I know some other women who are like this who are strong Christians with a more spiritual/emotional side as opposed to your moral/rational approach to it (or what appears to be). Maybe it's how He relates to certain people, or rather how we perceive it. Sorry for rambling. I have the Bible with me now, it's a copy of it and I read some of it. Yes, I need to do what you said. First I need to type of pens you said to get. I thought there were some like wife must be submissive and obey her husband and he must lead, ect? Or women more suit to domestic roles, ect. ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-10   17:40:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #77. To: ebonytwix (#75) I thought there were some like wife must be submissive and obey her husband and he must lead, ect? Or women more suit to domestic roles, ect. What if Hillary Clinton obeyed the above reference? It would have solved a multitude of problems:) redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-10   18:11:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 77.         There are no replies to Comment # 77. End Trace Mode for Comment # 77. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com