|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
|
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So what (the OP subject) is it wabale?
I’m not sure. I’m just finishing learning Mark’s Gospel, for performance purposes, and it’s having an enormous influence on what I think about inspiration. It took me two years - I’ve got one or two other things keeping me busy. I’m just starting to read R.T.France’s commentary, because he says Mark’s Gospel is a drama in 3 Acts, which I find particularly encouraging from a performance point of view. He writes that the author was either an extraordinarily inventive writer, or he was a brilliant editor of the sayings of Peter, and I’m inclined to believe the latter. Either way the Gospel has the ring of truth for me, and I’m feeling a bit euphoric. And if Mark’s Gospel is true, everything else must be. While generally speaking I have been making the long (57 years) and hazardous journey from Bibledolatry/Fundamentalism to higher criticism, I seem to have got stuck somewhere, mainly with the Stott line that the Bible was written by people and inspired by God, and both were fully involved. Don’t know if that’s what you meant, or if it helps.
Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nice. I'm trying to get a grip on what inspiration means, what it really could mean, predicated on the incarnation being true. How we square the circle of God inspiring all scripture including the horrors with Himself in Christ.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Rowan Williams's short little book on Mark's Gospel is worth a read.
Great to hear you're practising for a performance, wabale ...
I've seen performances / readings of various Gospels and they work well and do bring out additional facets that you might not notice simply by skimming through and reading them.
I'm sure Mark was a brilliant editor too, although I'm not sure we should see this in the same way as someone editing The Guardian or The Sunday Times.
A Gospel is a genre of literature of its own to some extent. I've heard Rowan Williams claim that - and equally others dispute it.
On the Stott thing, I must admit I'm quite taken aback at seeing him categorised as occupying a 'halfway-house' position. To me, he seems firmly within the evangelical camp, but certainly not towards the more fundamentalist Bibliolatrous end, of course.
One wonders where you've been, wabale, if you're finding Stott somewhere in the middle. He was nowhere near the Higher Critical end of the spectrum, although he was clearly not a fundie either.
It all depends where we draw our lines, of course.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Rowan Williams's short little book on Mark's Gospel is worth a read.....
I'm sure Mark was a brilliant editor too.
I second that about Rowan's book.
And even since Lightfoot, we've been discovedring how clever Mark was - not the 'simbple gospel in poor Greek.' See, for example, the way he uses chapter 13 to move people away from a parousia to the crucifixion - time signatures and verbs repeated in patterns.
[ 28. December 2017, 16:50: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Why would I want world Christianity to formally declare the Bible to be full of error?
Because you believe that parts of the OT are in error by depicting God as a monstrous killer. Why would you want a decent religion to have anything to do with such horrible passages?
I'm different, of course. It may be a sign of my theological backwardness, but I suppose I want to feel that there's something instructive (or even 'inspirational') in every part of the Bible, including the parts where there's some divinely sanctioned awfulness. After all, the crucifixion is an example of the same awfulness! What honorable father would require his son to die to solve a problem when the father could make things okay without requiring such a disgusting solution?
I don't see a solution in Christianity to the problem of the Killer God, so I just have to accept that troubling mystery. Others will take a different view.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Your randomly read, wooden, six day cookbook interpretation of your 'library' (the size of an epic novel, I've got it in that form of course, The Book of God) Bible is flat with regard to a thousand years of cultural evolution, so you can see no move to the left, i.e. to the people, to humanity, to equality of outcome for all, away from privilege. As epitomized by God's left wing move, God's new age, in Jesus. The Jesus of apocalyptic prophecy doesn't exist, so how can He exist for me? He never will. Not just for me but for you or anyone and everyone else. Not in this pre-transcendent world. Or in the transcendent of course. Except figuratively.
If you are just going to trot out meaningless twaddle like this then I'll leave you to your delusion.
Eutychus: As all ancient texts are read and understood via translation, one must trust that it is a mirror rather than an interpretive device. Since we have many translations of Biblical texts, I think it is fair to say that if words like the one we discussed, alma, is rendered consistently by a variety of translators, then translation is a reliable convergence of expert linguistic views and therefore trustworthy.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
If it's meaningless, where's the delusion?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Eutychus: As all ancient texts are read and understood via translation, one must trust that it is a mirror rather than an interpretive device.
This is a whole other debate, but translation is of necessity interpretation to a degree.
In the front of my Greek interlinear NT is this quote quote:
une langue est un filet jeté sur la réalité des choses, une autre langue est un autre filet et il est rare que les mailles coïncident.
Aptly enough, this is hard to translate well, but it means approximately this:
"any language is a net cast around reality; any other language is another, similar net. Rarely do the two meshes overlap exactly."
quote:
Since we have many translations of Biblical texts, I think it is fair to say that if words like the one we discussed, alma, is rendered consistently by a variety of translators, then translation is a reliable convergence of expert linguistic views and therefore trustworthy.
Yes. So it's not "virgin", then. Not even in any of the NASB95 references that Fruchtenbaum quotes in defence of this meaning - except in the single case of Isaiah 7:14, when apparently the translators' hermeneutic need for predictive prophecy to be commutative with what it prophesies overrides their* good sense.
*or their paymasters'...
[edited to, um, edit my translation]
[ 28. December 2017, 20:24: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
SvitlanaV2
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Why would I want world Christianity to formally declare the Bible to be full of error?
Because you believe that parts of the OT are in error by depicting God as a monstrous killer. Why would you want a decent religion to have anything to do with such horrible passages?
Excellent. This indecent religion was the one Jesus transcended.
quote:
I'm different, of course. It may be a sign of my theological backwardness, but I suppose I want to feel that there's something instructive (or even 'inspirational') in every part of the Bible, including the parts where there's some divinely sanctioned awfulness. After all, the crucifixion is an example of the same awfulness! What honorable father would require his son to die to solve a problem when the father could make things okay without requiring such a disgusting solution?
Even better. And then even more! I'm sorry, you'll have to go a long way to demonstrate theological backwardness, even in looking for the instructive and the inspirational (in the Gainsaying of Kore?! The Heresy of Peor!? And WORSE?!?).
Those last two sentences of yours REALLY need exploring. And can only be so from a postmodern perspective I suggest.
quote:
I don't see a solution in Christianity to the problem of the Killer God, so I just have to accept that troubling mystery. Others will take a different view.
Then I've failed - which I would being a mere oily rag - and so have the engineers of existential and postmodern theology. Who work fine for me. Which is a lie as I feared and trembled at things I have said for some years now. I have but I've got used to it and worse. I've begun to doubt. You provoke me to explore more.
Jesus saw the Father's will in the indecent religion that cradled Him in his full, ignorant humanity. A will Jesus' divine nature from the second Person exercised pre-incarnation, in agreement with the Father's. As very God they knew what would happen. Including in Jesus' ignorant human mind. Jesus' courage, faith was unbelievable. Like Abraham's. This needs greater and greater differentiation, exposition, there is nothing linear, formulaic about it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Any Chosen People narrative is problematic, because such a nation is surely obliged to cultivate a single minded bellicosity if it's going to last for centuries in a violent world. Any God who disapproves of such an attitude among his Chosen might be accused of hypocrisy....
But there’s the problem. The idea that Israel consistently misunderstood what it meant to be a Chosen People is woven through the OT—the Prophets in particular, but also the Law. They were chosen not to cultivate a single-minded bellicosity so that they could last for centuries. They were chosen to be a light to world, blessing the world through faithfulness to the covenant and witnessing to the kind of society God intended.
The Christian narrative is that Jesus succeeded where Israel had failed, and embodied Israel's faithfulness and chosen-ness. And we know where that faithfulness and chosen-ness ultimately led.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The Christian narrative is that Jesus succeeded where Israel had failed, and embodied Israel's faithfulness and chosen-ness. And we know where that faithfulness and chosen-ness ultimately led.
Resurrection and ascension and sitting down at the right hand of the Father.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Any Chosen People narrative is problematic, because such a nation is surely obliged to cultivate a single minded bellicosity if it's going to last for centuries in a violent world. Any God who disapproves of such an attitude among his Chosen might be accused of hypocrisy....
But there’s the problem. The idea that Israel consistently misunderstood what it meant to be a Chosen People is woven through the OT—the Prophets in particular, but also the Law. They were chosen not to cultivate a single-minded bellicosity so that they could last for centuries. They were chosen to be a light to world, blessing the world through faithfulness to the covenant and witnessing to the kind of society God intended.
...unless God really did tell them to go forth and murder entire groups of people, and take their land...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
(Don't know, either way. These days, I think the Bible is a record of one culture's struggles with and towards God. That gives me some breathing room. Growing up in church, I was taught that the various OT views of God were accurate, even when contradictory. Except when God told them they'd gotten it wrong. That's one reason, I speculate, for the prohibition on saying/writing a particular name of God--because, if God really is like *all* of that, do you really want to call on the Dude? Unless you absolutely have to?)
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
mt--
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The Christian narrative is that Jesus succeeded where Israel had failed, and embodied Israel's faithfulness and chosen-ness. And we know where that faithfulness and chosen-ness ultimately led.
Resurrection and ascension and sitting down at the right hand of the Father.
Good post.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The Christian narrative is that Jesus succeeded where Israel had failed, and embodied Israel's faithfulness and chosen-ness. And we know where that faithfulness and chosen-ness ultimately led.
Resurrection and ascension and sitting down at the right hand of the Father.
Amen. He succeeded where the 'inspired' script He followed failed.
[ 29. December 2017, 09:04: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the Stott thing, I must admit I'm quite taken aback at seeing him categorised as occupying a 'halfway-house' position. To me, he seems firmly within the evangelical camp, but certainly not towards the more fundamentalist Bibliolatrous end, of course.
One wonders where you've been, wabale, if you're finding Stott somewhere in the middle. He was nowhere near the Higher Critical end of the spectrum, although he was clearly not a fundie either.
It all depends where we draw our lines, of course.
Thank you very much, Gamaliel, for your comments on Mark, which I’ve added to my reading list for when I’ve got through the remaining 700 pages of R.T.France. Thinking about how to perform Mark is both exciting and terrifying.
Bit of a tangent, but here goes: Re Stott / and ‘where I’ve been’! I imagine the journey that many evangelicals make in their thinking actually takes them in many dimensions - not in a straight or predictable line then. This may account for some of my weirdness. Also bear in mind I generally think historically, not theologically.
I didn’t actually say Stott was in the ‘middle’, just ‘somewhere’, although the particular somewhere I had in mind was to do with his view on inspiration, which I appreciate many here might regard as antidelivian. At the same time, vast numbers of Christians worldwide, and most certainly in the country where ‘wabale’ means ‘thankyou’, actually need to catch up with some of the things Stott said, on evolution for example, half a century ago.
Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mt--
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The Christian narrative is that Jesus succeeded where Israel had failed, and embodied Israel's faithfulness and chosen-ness. And we know where that faithfulness and chosen-ness ultimately led.
Resurrection and ascension and sitting down at the right hand of the Father.
Good post.
Indeed. But there was rather a rough go of it on the way there.
And those things taken together are really the point, I think. Isaiah's suffering servant, those who lose their life will gain it, etc. Faithfulness is hard and asks much, possibly everything. But ultimately it leads somewhere wonderful.
Perhaps, to paraphrase Paul, chosen-ness is not something to be grasped or used to ones own advantage. It is something that calls for complete self-giving.
And Martin, I don't think the "inspired script" he followed failed. I think people failed to follow the script, failed to understand what it meant to be chosen and in covenant with God.
[ 29. December 2017, 12:51: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715
|
Posted
antidiluvian antidiluvian antidiluvian
Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You mean 'antidiluvian' I presume?
You must be the polar opposite of those French people who believe the correct term for Antichrist is antéchrist because "he will appear before Christ"... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
"Antidiluvian": one who does not believe in the Flood?
(antediluvian)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715
|
Posted
Actually I'm more 'antidelivian', which will be a very useful word when people get fed up with Amazon.
Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
This is a sentence which depends for its meaning on knowing what its author meant by:
All Scripture: Did he mean merely The Septuagint? i.e. what the author accepted as 'scripture' at the time he actually wrote the sentence. Perhaps he could envisage a possible future where his own and other Christian writers works would be classified as 'scripture', perhaps not. Perhaps he classified as scripture Apocryphal books included in the Septuagint that are no longer regarded as 'scripture' by the readership of significant sections of The Worldwide Church, perhaps not.
Given: This word was not in the sentence originally composed in Greek by its author. (every WRITING [is] God-breathed,) In fact even the word 'scripture' is not found in the Greek sentence, though the context makes clear that 'scripture' is being referred to.
Inspiration: The word used in the original sentence was 'God-breathed', meaning much the same in effect as the breathing of 'life' into Adam meant to him. Scripture then is being referred to as something which God has provided to ANIMATE us, educate us, to convict us of the truth about ourselves, to train us in righteousness, equipping us for the good works that God has placed within our capacity to do.
It would appear then that 'inspiration' in this context has little connection with the idea that all scripture is an infallible, sacrosanct, backed by supernaturally inviolable divine authority, word for word transcript of God's verbal edicts to sinful mankind. As is sometimes assumed when verses such as "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." are quoted in support of the pernicious 'doctrine' of male headship without reference to the other sentences in scripture which would call this draconian edict into question, such as. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.".
Scripture is 'inspired' both in its authorship, and its effects upon the attentive reader, (it can reveal the attentive readers heart's intent), but it is neither infallible or incapable of having been redacted.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You mean 'antidiluvian' I presume?
You must be the polar opposite of those French people who believe the correct term for Antichrist is antéchrist because "he will appear before Christ"...
"Antidiluvian": one who does not believe in the Flood?
(antediluvian)
Zut alors!
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
And nice one, wabale ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So what (the OP subject) is it wabale?
I’m not sure. I’m just finishing learning Mark’s Gospel, for performance purposes, and it’s having an enormous influence on what I think about inspiration. It took me two years - I’ve got one or two other things keeping me busy. I’m just starting to read R.T.France’s commentary, because he says Mark’s Gospel is a drama in 3 Acts, which I find particularly encouraging from a performance point of view. He writes that the author was either an extraordinarily inventive writer, or he was a brilliant editor of the sayings of Peter, and I’m inclined to believe the latter. Either way the Gospel has the ring of truth for me, and I’m feeling a bit euphoric. And if Mark’s Gospel is true, everything else must be. While generally speaking I have been making the long (57 years) and hazardous journey from Bibledolatry/Fundamentalism to higher criticism, I seem to have got stuck somewhere, mainly with the Stott line that the Bible was written by people and inspired by God, and both were fully involved. Don’t know if that’s what you meant, or if it helps.
That's interesting. Where does he put the divisions? I've a suspicion it's a chiasmus built round Peter's confession in Mk 8:29. The whole feel of the gospel changes at that point, and I'm sure its intentional.
If the tradition is true that Mark is Peter's gospel - it's a tradition which goes back to the earliest days, 100-120 AD - then it's particularly telling that Peter's confession should be so critical to the narrative and also, that Peter should then get so unequivocally reprimanded only four verses later.
I also agree with Gamaliel and Leo that it's a big mistake to think that because St Peter was just a fisherman, his narrative must be unsophisticated. That's the same intellectual snobbery that says that Shakespeare can't have written his plays, not because there's some evidence that somebody else did, but simply because he was a mere Upstart Crow from Warwickshire. So he couldn't have done. Some more cultured chappie must have written them in stead.
Besides, we can't hear chiasmus, but we can hear rhyme and metre. We expect it to be there. We can also hear numbered lists, three point sermons, beginnings, middles and ends, etc. Because that's the way we're used to hearing things presented, when we present things, we do it the same way. Other cultures and past generations will have had their ears attuned to the structures they expected to hear.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Of course we can hear chiasmus. Say this out loud and you will hear it:
The LORD is a roaring lion
A beast of prey is our God.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
but it is neither infallible or incapable of having been redacted.
So to clarify you are saying:
'God is fallible in his pronouncements in the Bible and might tell lies about authorship but this does not reduce the truth value or credibility of his scripture.'
If this is your God I suggest you trade him in for a better model.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Jamat, it would be interesting and helpful to have you reply to the post from RdrEmCofE
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course we can hear chiasmus. Say this out loud and you will hear it:
The LORD is a roaring lion
A beast of prey is our God.
Is that a citation (which I can't find, incidentally) or one you have written in biblical sounding language to serve as an example? I suspect most moderns would pick up the parallelism quicker than the chiasmus.
And can you or any modern hear the longer chiasmus in Psalm 54 (Hebrew numbering) or Col 1:15-20 without it being pointed out?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
but it is neither infallible or incapable of having been redacted.
So to clarify you are saying:
'God is fallible in his pronouncements in the Bible and might tell lies about authorship but this does not reduce the truth value or credibility of his scripture.'
If this is your God I suggest you trade him in for a better model.
If all you can supply in response is invective, it doesn't speak to the strength of your arguments.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
'God is fallible in his pronouncements . . . . . . .
I don't see your statement as 'clarification' but as obfuscation tainted with misguided credulity.
Your first wrong assumption is that the Bible is filled entirely with infallible pronouncements from God. It is not. There is no scriptural warrant for making that assumption. It is entirely a sectarian pious belief dating from mid 19th century USA. 'Inspired' does not mean 'dictated infallibly and entirely by God'.
Second you assume wrongly that all the 'pronouncements in the Bible', as you put it, are verifiably, historically, scientifically true. Furthermore the ones that are not 'true' in those strictly limited respects are not 'lies' but merely evidence of the level of scientific knowledge of the human authors who actually wrote under the inspiration of God. They were not writing a scientific treatise describing 'Life, The Universe and everything'. They were conveying moral precepts, engaging stories, encouraging national identity and social cohesion, challenging the evils and abuse of power that beset them and the people of God, recalling the teaching, character and deeds of a most Remarkable Reformer, offering advice on Christian praxis, encouraging believers under persecution, etc.
If you find it impossible to imagine a God who would studiously avoid producing a book filled with irrefutable edicts proscribing every aspect of human conduct, with the threat of eternal torture for non compliance, then I might suggest that MY 'model' is far superior to yours and it is yours that needs to be scrapped and a better one obtained.
My 'model' incorporates all the innovations and modifications introduced by Jesus Christ.
Interestingly, HE was so unconcerned about Biblical Inerrancy that he did not write a single word of scripture, but left it entirely to his followers, who committed their experiences to paper 30 years or more after the events. Some documents penned by St Paul are approximately contemporaneous with Jesus but still can be no closer than 5 to 10 years after his death.
The 'truth value or credibility of scripture' is not enhanced by humanly declaring it 'infallible', 'inerrant' or 'supernaturally dictated'. These claims are all made about the Koran and other religious works, such as the Book of Mormon. Scripture has no need to compete with them on equal terms.
Scripture claims itself to be 'inspired'. That is obviously all that is necessary as far as God is concerned. If you want a magic Book to tell you exactly what you need to do to escape the vengeance of a wrathful and murderous God you obviously NEED the Bible to be 'inerrant', 'infallible' and 'supernaturally dictated'. I am pleased to be able to inform you that there is no NEED for your NEED for an 'infallible Bible' to be met by God, because God is not as you seem to imagine Him to be.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Bible is filled entirely with infallible pronouncements from God
Well you see, there is a fundamental issue.. It is a straw man. It seems you have no concept of what you are dealing with.
Eutychus: an interesting concept of invective. Are you serious?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Jamat, you seem to have this thing going where you think that God is made out to be a 'liar' if it turns out there were more than one person involved in the writing and compiling of some of the scriptural texts.
Perhaps you might like to step over to the Apocalyptic Literature thread in Kerygmania to explore how that particular genre works - given that you don't appear to actually recognise it as a genre but treat those passages as some kind of magic almanac or a library of proof-texts that fit together like a jig-saw puzzle.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Your response was sarcastic, it seemed to me, which is a form of invective.
It looks like Eutychus understood it that way too.
Perhaps we were simply going by the plain-meaning of your text ...
Whatever the case, your argument is as weak as it is circular. You aren't engaging with the issues simply throwing blandishments at them.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Eutychus: an interesting concept of invective. Are you serious?
If you summarise another's position as declaring that God tells lies, I think that's quote:
insulting, abusive, or highly critical language
which is the dictionary definition of invective.
It's certainly not interacting with the arguments set forth. To do that you'd have to explain, in your own words, just how you think that the position set forth constitutes God telling lies.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Pearls RdrEmCofE, pearls.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Presumably Milton was 'telling lies' when he wrote Paradise Lost because he was describing things imaginatively that he had no way of verifying empirically.
Dickens was 'telling lies' when he wrote 'Great Expectations' because it is a novel.
Shakespeare was 'telling lies' when he wrote his plays...
Jesus must have been doing the same when he told Parables because he made the stories up ...
And so it goes on.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
My wife, many years ago, taught in a highly Fundamentalist school for missionary children (it's a complicated story ...).
They didn't believe in reading fiction as it was "lies" - i.e. the events described hadn't happened.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
To be fair, I think Jamat was probably suggesting that if Scripture is infallible then a) 'almâ in Isaiah 7:14 must mean 'virgin' because anything less than that is less than the truth b) Isaiah must be one person because, as he has it, John records Jesus quoting Isaiah as a single person, so if that's not the case Jesus is a liar.
However, this is once again me doing Jamat's homework for him in the absence of him actually making any arguments himself.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
I’m just finishing learning Mark’s Gospel, for performance purposes, and it’s having an enormous influence on what I think about inspiration. It took me two years - I’ve got one or two other things keeping me busy. I’m just starting to read R.T.France’s commentary, because he says Mark’s Gospel is a drama in 3 Acts, which I find particularly encouraging from a performance point of view. He writes that the author was either an extraordinarily inventive writer, or he was a brilliant editor of the sayings of Peter, and I’m inclined to believe the latter...
That's interesting. Where does he put the divisions? I've a suspicion it's a chiasmus built round Peter's confession in Mk 8:29. The whole feel of the gospel changes at that point, and I'm sure its intentional
If the tradition is true that Mark is Peter's gospel - it's a tradition which goes back to the earliest days, 100-120 AD - then it's particularly telling that Peter's confession should be so critical to the narrative and also, that Peter should then get so unequivocally reprimanded only four verses later...
From 'The Gospel of Mark' by R.T.France:
The Heading (1:1)
The Prologue: Setting the Scene - The Dramatis Personae (1:2-13)
Act One: Galilee (1:14 - 8:21)
Act Two: On the Way to Jerusalem
Learning about the Cross (8:22-10:52)
Act Three: Jerusalem (11:1-16:8)
[France doesn’t concern himself with anything beyond 16:8, except for explaining why he doesn’t. I won’t be either, simply on the principle of ‘leaving ’em wanting more’ …]
Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thing is, Eutychus, I suspect most of us here, if we wanted to, could make Jamat's arguments for him more cogently than he can.
It's as if he thinks it's so a priori that he doesn't need to bother.
Either that or ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
My wife, many years ago, taught in a highly Fundamentalist school for missionary children (it's a complicated story ...).
They didn't believe in reading fiction as it was "lies" - i.e. the events described hadn't happened.
Probably that miserable sort who think there really WAS a woman who looked for a coin all over the house, and one particular mustard tree Jesus was referring to. In short that every parable Jesus told referred to an actual event that happened to an actual person (or tree).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
in the Hebrew language there is no relationship between the words almah and virgin. On the contrary, it is usually a young woman who bears children. The word alma only conveys age/gender. Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin, he would have used the word betulah1 (בְּתוּלָה) not almah. The word betulah appears frequently in the Jewish Scriptures, and is the only word – in both biblical and modern Hebrew – that conveys sexual purity.
Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the masculine form of the noun עַלְמָה (alma) is עֶלֶם (elem), which means a “young man,” not a male virgin. This word appears twice in the Jewish Scriptures (I Samuel 17:56, 20:22). As expected, without exception, all Christian Bibles correctly translate עֶלֶם as a “young man,” “lad,” or “stripling,” never “virgin.” Why does theKing James Version of the Bible translate the masculine Hebrew noun לָעֶלֶם (la’elem) as “to the young man” in I Samuel 20:22, and yet the feminine form of the same Hebrew noun הָעַלְמָה as “a virgin” in Isaiah 7:14? The answer is Christian Bibles had no need to mistranslate I Samuel 20:22 because this verse was not misquoted in the New Testament.
https://outreachjudaism.org/alma-virgin/
The fact remains that no one except Miriam herself or whoever impregnated her can be sure that Miriam was a virgin when she became pregnant with the Messiah.
Religious sensitivities, discrimination and bigotry, rife at the time, would have ensured that both her and her unborn child would, in all probability have been either stoned to death or cast out of her community without support of any kind.
Though 'Alma' may have been incorrectly translated as 'virgin' and should have been translated 'young maiden', it could normally be assumed that 'young maidens', (in such a strictly sexually moral society), would normally be virginal.
We are therefore left with two possible explanations for the virgo intacta theory, each giving rise to different associative theological problems.
1) Mary was in fact virgo intacta, (the term virgin being appropriate), but obviously only until the baby was delivered. For a woman to give birth and still remain virgo intacta would be miraculous indeed, and certainly not the normal human way of entering the world, even for an incarnate deity. (There is no hint whatever that baby Jesus was delivered by Cesarian section.) A theological question might be "in what way might the human child be considered to be fully human, having had no human father". Surely such an individual must be considered utterly unique, and therefore not truly representative of the human race as a whole. (So Christs humanity is called into question).
2) Mary was in fact humanly impregnated and the 'young maiden' translation would have remained appropriate, since 'young maidens' and not 'old maids', are most commonly the ones who enter labour and give birth. The theological questions that might arise from this state of affairs would depend upon HOW Mary was rendered pregnant.
a) If Mary had consensual sexual intercourse before her betrothal to Joseph, then she would have entered matrimony on false pretences and the annunciation and Joseph's dream become entirely fictional accounts devised to 'cover the crime'. The theological consequences are obvious.
b) If Mary had been raped, (a not uncommon occurrence for 'young maidens' under Roman occupation), then, given the shame and threat of exile from all family and community support, it would not be surprising that a young girl might be so traumatised as to have psychologically 'blanked' the experience from her conscious memory. (An effect often recorded in similar cases known to medical science). The annunciation and dream of Joseph in these circumstances would be plausible, indeed just the kind of intervention a Loving God might employ to protect the integrity of an innocent Jewish maiden. Furthermore, a God who is willing to become incarnate under such humiliating circumstances is just the kind of non judgmental, loving, servant kind of God that we see in the character and teaching of Jesus Christ.
BUT since we cannot know which of these or other options are actually what happened, we simply have to keep an open mind on the subject and trust that God had the matter entirely in hand and has completed all that had to be done on our behalf.
[ 30. December 2017, 23:37: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
My wife, many years ago, taught in a highly Fundamentalist school for missionary children (it's a complicated story ...).
They didn't believe in reading fiction as it was "lies" - i.e. the events described hadn't happened.
Probably that miserable sort who think there really WAS a woman who looked for a coin all over the house, and one particular mustard tree Jesus was referring to. In short that every parable Jesus told referred to an actual event that happened to an actual person (or tree).
I heard a radio preacher claim just that once. The idea struck me as an absolutely bizarre idea at the time. Still does.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
My wife, many years ago, taught in a highly Fundamentalist school for missionary children (it's a complicated story ...).
They didn't believe in reading fiction as it was "lies" - i.e. the events described hadn't happened.
Probably that miserable sort who think there really WAS a woman who looked for a coin all over the house, and one particular mustard tree Jesus was referring to. In short that every parable Jesus told referred to an actual event that happened to an actual person (or tree).
I heard a radio preacher claim just that once. The idea struck me as an absolutely bizarre idea at the time. Still does.
Do they believe in actual roof beams in peoples eyes as well?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thing is, Eutychus, I suspect most of us here, if we wanted to, could make Jamat's arguments for him more cogently than he can.
It's as if he thinks it's so a priori that he doesn't need to bother.
Either that or ...
Do it then bro!
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
The fact remains that no one except Miriam herself or whoever impregnated her can be sure that Miriam was a virgin when she became pregnant with the Messiah.
RdrEmCofE, it probably needs clarifying that this thread arose out of a Kerygmania thread on the prophecy of Isaiah, out of which, in turn, an argument developed about the precise meaning of 'almâ.
There was no dispute there about Luke, beyond all doubt, portraying Mary as being a virgin in his Gospel; rather, the dispute was about whether the word used in Isaiah 7:14 incontrovertibly meant virgin.
Jamat was alone on the thread in holding such a view and appeared to do so (in the absence of further clarification from him) essentially because any other meaning would make Isaiah's prophecy sub-par and thus not up to infallibility standards.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus:It’s certainly not interacting with the arguments set forth. To do that you'd have to explain, in your own words, just how you think that the position set forth constitutes God telling lies.
The arguments set forth as you put it are chock full of straw man assumptions about what an opposing view looks like. I simply cannot be bothered with humbug.
If anyone wants to pull apart a statement like:
“If you find it impossible to imagine a God who would studiously avoid producing a book filled with irrefutable edicts proscribing every aspect of human conduct, with the threat of eternal torture for non compliance..”
then be my guest. The confusion in it bears no relation to my convictions.
If one questions or assumes flaws in scripture as a beginning position on the basis of so called inconsistency, textual assumption like redaction, historical anomaly or morality, then the word ‘lies’ is not too harsh a way to put it IF as is claimed by many here, an almighty, omniscient, just, omnipotent and loving being inspired them. To point this out is not invective.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Euthchus: any other meaning would make Isaiah's prophecy sub-par and thus not up to infallibility standards.
Sorry, just saw this.
Not the case. I maintained and still do that the Septuagint translators were correct in rendering the word ‘virgin’ since that translation clearly shows the prophet’s intention that this was the qualification required for the mother of the Messiah.
Infallibility is a side issue. The question is that this is a genuine predictive prophecy.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
What is it then?
How is God inspiring scripture inconsistent with additions and redaction?
You challenged me to complete your argument for you. That was in response to a challenge that I've made - along with many others on these boards, for you to set your stall out properly instead of accusing anyone who sees things differently of bad faith or worse.
My rhetorical 'either ... or' implied that your answer would either be as Eutychus or myself had suggested or ... (Fill in answer as appropriate - such as 'He doesn't know' or, 'Blow me down, he's come up with something profound, startling and original that didn't come off the back of a cornflake packet produced in the US Mid-West ...').
You have yet to demonstrate how the idea of divine inspiration is incompatible with multi-authorship of certain scriptural texts.
We are still waiting for you to do so and you shrug your shoulders and dismiss such questions as 'humbug'.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The arguments set forth as you put it are chock full of straw man assumptions about what an opposing view looks like. I simply cannot be bothered with humbug.
You're doing it again. It's not enough to label the arguments as "chock full of straw man assumptions" without telling us what these assumptions are and why they are wrong.
If you can't be bothered to spell out your arguments for the rest of us, you can hardly blame us for misrepresenting them or indeed suspecting that you haven't got a leg to stand on.
quote:
If anyone wants to pull apart a statement like:
“If you find it impossible to imagine a God who would studiously avoid producing a book filled with irrefutable edicts proscribing every aspect of human conduct, with the threat of eternal torture for non compliance..”
then be my guest.
No, that is your job! Once again, it is not up to anyone else to do your rebuttals for you. quote:
The confusion in it bears no relation to my convictions.
I don't understand why. At first glance it seems to reflect pretty accurately what you believe. If you disagree, explain why it's confused.
quote:
If one questions or assumes flaws in scripture as a beginning position on the basis of so called inconsistency, textual assumption like redaction, historical anomaly or morality, then the word ‘lies’ is not too harsh a way to put it IF as is claimed by many here, an almighty, omniscient, just, omnipotent and loving being inspired them. To point this out is not invective.
Now that is confused. Unlike you, however, I shall take the time and effort to argue why I think that's the case.
quote:
If one questions or assumes flaws in scripture
These are two completely separate and indeed contradictory things.
How can one "question" a flaw in Scripture?
And how is this analagous to "assuming" flaws in Scripture?
And who is "assuming" flaws in Scripture here? It's you who's saying that (for instance) because I say 'almâ doesn't mean virgin, I'm claiming Scripture is "flawed". I'm claiming no such thing. I'm looking at the actual words used and what I understand them to mean and claiming that 'almâ doesn't mean virgin even if Mary was one.
quote:
as a beginning position on the basis of so called inconsistency, textual assumption like redaction,
For a start, if something is "assumed as a beginning position" it's not "on the basis of" something else. It's deduced from it.
To go on with, there are many inconsistencies, or at least apparent inconsistencies, in Scripture. Admitting this does not make Scripture "flawed" in the sense of "unfit for purpose" unless one's assumption is that to be so, it has to be 100% literally and historically accurate and contain no form of internal contradictions whatsoever, which is a challenge to say the least (for instance, to take just one example off the top of my head, the manner of Judas' death).
Similarly redaction (a confusing word) is not an assumption but a hypothesis adopted by some on the basis of examination of the text. I have an open mind about redaction but I really don't see why, if you admit that the Bible was written by more than one human author, it should bother you if there are more authors than there are books (so to speak). The important question is surely whether we believe in God's overriding hand in the whole.
Similarly again, "historical anomaly" is not an assumption but a plain fact in some instances such as the ones in Daniel. We may have differing approaches to such anomalies but their existence is not an "assumption" and neither is it the result of "questioning". They emerge simply by looking at the text.
And what exactly do you mean by "questions or assumes flaws in scripture as a beginning position on the basis of... morality"? I can't parse that.
So simply to say that all of the above constitutes God telling lies seems decidedly too harsh to me, given that all of the above appears to amount to little more than word salad.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Cross posted with Jamat ...
Ok, so can the rest of Isaiah 7 be said to be a neat template foretelling the life of Christ?
How does verse 16 fit? About the 'land you dread' being forsaken by her two kings?
How does that fit anything we read in the Gospels?
And all the references to Assyria from Isaiah 14:17 onwards?
These appear to be contemporary references to me.
So it'd probably follow in all likelihood that the reference to a young woman bearing a child would have a contemporary resonance too. Otherwise, what possible benefit would the oracle have for those who first heard it?
Later, the early Christians applied it to Christ, building on the development of the idea of a Messiah or Saviour that we find emerging in Hebrew prophecy.
One could say they 'discerned' or applied it that way, taking earlier references and applying them to Christ.
It always used to puzzle me in my earnest young evangelical days why we would take Isaiah 7:14 as predictive and then ignore the rest of the passage. What were the references to curds and honey and knowing how to refuse evil and chose the good?
Rather than construct an elaborate interpretive schema for that, isn't it easier to see it as a contemporary reference which Matthew later applied to Christ?
Sure, the NT suggests that the OT prophets had some inkling of future fulfilment of their oracles in Christ but it doesn't tell us they had a completely clear idea.
They were addressing issues in their own day which had resonances and applications in times to come.
What they weren't doing was setting out a timetable for the end of the world.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
