|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Self interpreting Scriptures?
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
2 Timothy 3:16 ESV /
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.
Romans 15:4 ESV / 33 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
Isaiah 55:11 ESV /
So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
Romans 10:17 ESV /
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Jeremiah 23:29 ESV /
Is not my word like fire, declares the LORD, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?
Matthew 24:35 ESV / 21 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Joshua 1:8 ESV /
This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.
Hebrews 4:12-14 ESV
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
A few quotes from which you could you could make a case that scripture claims authority for itself within itself.
This is started here as it is really in response to discussion begun on the closed inerrancy thread in response to Mousethief who wrote:
"Where in Scripture does it say Scripture is enough?"
and
"On the other hand, Scripture says "hold fast to the traditions that have been passed down to you, whether by word or by letter from us." St. Paul seems to think that Scriptures aren't all there is."
In response to the second comment one undigested thought is that when Paul referred to traditions passed down, he was not referring to those subsequent to his own writings but rather to the Old Testament and to the writings of the other apostles.
[ 23. September 2016, 01:15: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
"Claiming authority" has got nothing to do with self-interpretation. Constitutions and laws claim authority. They still need to be interpreted.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
"Claiming authority" has got nothing to do with self-interpretation. Constitutions and laws claim authority. They still need to be interpreted.
Granted. Perhaps the thread title is a bit provocative. My contention is that claims to authority are intrinsic rather than the meanings are always crystal clear. However I do think a cardinal rule of understanding is that face value clarity needs little elucidation usually for most texts.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
If scripture were self-interpreting there would not be so many sects.
If scripture were self-interpreting, there would not be so many arguments within the same sects.
If scripture were self interpreting, there would not be any unresolved conflicts within the texts.
The Bible cannot be properly read without context. The fact that none of you do is proof of this.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If scripture were self-interpreting there would not be so many sects.
If scripture were self-interpreting, there would not be so many arguments within the same sects.
If scripture were self interpreting, there would not be any unresolved conflicts within the texts.
The Bible cannot be properly read without context. The fact that none of you do is proof of this.
On the other hand there are also vast tracts of agreement among people and between groups on what the basics of Christiaity are. We might not agree on what exactly repentance is but all agree that it is required.
We may disagree on communion rites but most groups have a lords supper practice and similarly,baptism. Being a nay sayer is a bit dog in the mangerish. I wrote the thread title with as a question because to me interpretation is a given. I nevertheless think the 40 authors have a generally harmonious chorus on their 66 song sheets.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
I can only suppose that many of you can read the Greek and Hebrew in which the texts were written. I can't, and in any case I would require much more knowledge of the culture.
I depend on translations. There are many. They vary.
Is it unreasonable to suppose that Divinely inspired texts would be unambiguously available?
But then I hear that the letter killeth.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Nothing is self-interpreting, ever.
Not even our own intentions, of which we only become aware at some stage not remotely related to the time at which it formed. If anything would ever be transparently self-interpreting to an individual subjectivity, surely it would be that subject's own intentions.
The bible is a whole series of interwoven and juxtaposed texts. They are not even self-defining, and therefore cannot possibly be self-interpreting. They are intended to be interpreted relationally - in the context of a life lived and our relationships with each other within the body of Christ, and our pilgrimage into God, who is not defined by the bible either.
It will never be true however many different ways you find of saying the same thing.
[ 23. September 2016, 07:17: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Also, some churches have more than 66 song-sheets, Jamat.
The Ethiopians have the most with 81, I believe.
What 'authority' do we apply to determine which books to include in the canon and which to exclude?
Sure, there is a general consensus on the NT books but not on the OT and 'inter-testamental' ones. Why is that? Who decides?
On the way we interpret the Pauline reference to 'traditional', it strikes me that we make a hermeneutical decision based on whatever our own tradition happens to be. If we are conservative Protestants we are inevitably going to think, 'Ah, it must be the OT ...' and then claim that this is the 'plain-meaning' of the text when there is nothing plain about it at all in this instance.
If we are Orthodox then we'll see it as a reference to traditions that include but are not limited to the scriptures.
In both cases we are making hermeneutical judgements on the basis of our tradition.
We all do that.
That's not a post-modernist dismissal of meta-narratives, simply an example of how these things work in practice.
--------------------
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
Just in case it needs to be said, when I suggest - as is my wont - that there's a both/and not either/or thing going on with issues like this, I'm not saying:
- That the scriptures aren't inspired (I believe they are, but not in a crudely 'fundamentalist' understanding of the way that 'works' in practice - and I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that here at the moment).
- That the Church somehow arbitrarily decided which books to include and which to 'reject' - although as Mousethief has pointed out before, non-inclusion in the canon simply meant that they weren't to be read publicly in church as part of the services, not that they shouldn't be read at all ...
What I am saying is as follows:
It's often suggested by conservative Protestants that the scriptures 'self-authenticated' themselves to the compilers of the canon, which was why they were included. I'm putting that crudely, but that's essentially the argument.
Fine, I'll go with that to a certain extent - with the proviso that those who compilied and canonised the scriptures didn't necessarily have a vatic 'ping' Eureka moment but spent ages discussing, debating and thrashing things out collectively and collegially ... and further more that those who compiled and canonised the scriptures had their own authority for doing so - that conferred on the Church by Christ, her Head.
That authority doesn't contradict what we might call the intrinsic authority of the scriptures themselves. It simply 'draws it out' as it were.
Neither does this obviate the sense of the Holy Spirit guiding the process. That doesn't necessarily imply people having startling revelations and so on as they worked these things through.
If it'd been some kind of 'ping' fanfare moment - tan-tan-tara ... then the scriptural canon would have been agreed from the outset. Sure, the documents of what became the NT as we now have it were in circulation early on - but so were a lot of other texts that didn't finally make it into the canon as we have it today. For several centuries these would have been read and used alongside the canonical scriptures - let's make no bones about that.
So, I'm suggesting that a synergistic process took place - and yes, that does respect a high view of scriptural inspiration - and that the Church was fully involved in terms of people using their faculties.
Sure, one could say that the Church simply 'recognised' the inherent authority of the texts themselves - but that wouldn't have happened if the texts had been on a desert island somewhere with nobody interpreting them ...
Hence my both/and not either/or thing ...
One could put it crudely and suggest that the scriptures had an intrinsic authority which the Church - also having an interpretative and curatorial authority as the Body of Christ with Christ as the Head - then recognised and affirmed.
So, one could say that there was an authority coming from two directions - through the inscripturated word itself and through the community of faith which was empowered and indeed commissioned to be the custodian and interpreter of the teachings handed down from Christ and his Apostles.
That's the way the more 'High Church' argument would run.
Whatever view we take of that, it seems to me, we have to steer a course between two potential excesses.
1. Ignoring the collective, collegial and Church aspect and thereby dislocating the scriptures from the community of faith into which they emerged - they were written by individuals who were themselves part of the Church ...
2. Going to the opposite extreme and ignoring the individual element and conferring all authority on the collegial aspect - honed down at one extreme to a particular Magisterium (ie. cue creepy music ... darhn darhn dahhhh ... Rome).
Ok, those are caricatured views to a certain extent. Rome doesn't deny what conservative Protestants believe about the intrinsic value and authority of the scriptures.
One might argue that the Orthodox and traditional Anglicans and Lutherans to a certain extent, tend to go for a middle-way between those extremes.
Just some thoughts.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I nevertheless think the 40 authors have a generally harmonious chorus on their 66 song sheets.
That means nothing. All the major religions are generally harmonious, it is a requirement of being a religion.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
We (almost) all agree on celebrating the Lord's Supper and in baptising people not because that's obvious from the Scriptures -- if it were, there would be no exceptions -- but because of nearly 2000 years of tradition of doing so. Then when we look at the Bible, certain passages leap out as commending what we were already doing. They are interpreted in light of our long ongoing actions.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I nevertheless think the 40 authors have a generally harmonious chorus on their 66 song sheets.
Not everyone even agrees that the Bible has 66 books. If they can't even agree what the Bible is, it seems unlikely that their interpretations would all be the same.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
What's even more interesting are the points of agreement within Christianity about things with little or no scriptural support being almost universally accepted as "Christian". The most obvious example is monogamy. The Old Testament seems to approve of polygamy and regard it as unremarkable. There is nothing in the New Testament to prohibit it or say that God changed His mind on this subject. There are a couple mentions of marital monogamy in the epistles, but these are qualifications for elders or deacons, which implies that there were Christians who were polygamists. After all, if polygamy were considered incompatible with Christianity there would be no need for a rule stating that polygamous Christians shouldn't be deacons.
And yet marital monogamy is considered to be an integral part of Christianity today, and for most of its history. I'd suggest that this was largely because of Christianity's adoption of Roman social customs (like marital monogamy) during its very earliest days.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What's even more interesting are the points of agreement within Christianity about things with little or no scriptural support being almost universally accepted as "Christian". The most obvious example is monogamy. The Old Testament seems to approve of polygamy and regard it as unremarkable. There is nothing in the New Testament to prohibit it or say that God changed His mind on this subject. There are a couple mentions of marital monogamy in the epistles, but these are qualifications for elders or deacons, which implies that there were Christians who were polygamists. After all, if polygamy were considered incompatible with Christianity there would be no need for a rule stating that polygamous Christians shouldn't be deacons.
And yet marital monogamy is considered to be an integral part of Christianity today, and for most of its history. I'd suggest that this was largely because of Christianity's adoption of Roman social customs (like marital monogamy) during its very earliest days.
But even that highlights how it comes down to interpretation based on external data.
Given the evidence from the Early Church regarding the remarriage of widows, it wouldn't be unreasonable to read the injunction in 1 Timothy as saying that a bishop may not be remarried after being widowed.
And as to why no injunction against polygamy for anyone else? Well, if no one was doing it, you don't need to counsel people not to - after all Paul and the other NT writers are not writing comprehensive instruction manuals. I suspect we would find that amongst the Jewish communities of the Mediterranean where many of the first Christian communities arose, monogamy was uniform - as much from Jewish practice as Graeco-Roman.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
But even that highlights how it comes down to interpretation based on external data.
Given the evidence from the Early Church regarding the remarriage of widows, it wouldn't be unreasonable to read the injunction in 1 Timothy as saying that a bishop may not be remarried after being widowed.
And as to why no injunction against polygamy for anyone else? Well, if no one was doing it, you don't need to counsel people not to - after all Paul and the other NT writers are not writing comprehensive instruction manuals. I suspect we would find that amongst the Jewish communities of the Mediterranean where many of the first Christian communities arose, monogamy was uniform - as much from Jewish practice as Graeco-Roman.
Well, we know that Herod the Great had multiple concurrent wives, so monogamy couldn't have been completely uniform. And given the glee with which Josephus goes about cataloging all of Herod's other wrongdoing, the fact that he doesn't ding Herod for polygamy is noteworthy.
That's just one example that springs to mind because it's of an historically significant person. I suspect a more comprehensive survey would find others.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
I suspect we would find that amongst the Jewish communities of the Mediterranean where many of the first Christian communities arose, monogamy was uniform - as much from Jewish practice as Graeco-Roman.
No. You would find that it was legal but less common than single-partner marriage. But this is not remarkable. Single-partner marriage is the most common form of marriage in every culture. Even in those which have no religious or social prohibition of polygamous marriage.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What's even more interesting are the points of agreement within Christianity about things with little or no scriptural support being almost universally accepted as "Christian". The most obvious example is monogamy. The Old Testament seems to approve of polygamy and regard it as unremarkable. There is nothing in the New Testament to prohibit it or say that God changed His mind on this subject. There are a couple mentions of marital monogamy in the epistles, but these are qualifications for elders or deacons, which implies that there were Christians who were polygamists. After all, if polygamy were considered incompatible with Christianity there would be no need for a rule stating that polygamous Christians shouldn't be deacons.
And yet marital monogamy is considered to be an integral part of Christianity today, and for most of its history. I'd suggest that this was largely because of Christianity's adoption of Roman social customs (like marital monogamy) during its very earliest days.
In the gospels the subject of divorce arises and Jesus words are pretty unequivocal. Essentially he refers to the original paradigm ie one man and his wife not wives and regarding divorce the Mosaic rule was not ideal. In fact in this passage we see the only time he contradicts Moses in a ruling stating Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts but from the beginning it was not so.
Polygamy was practiced and not specifically condemned in that Jacob had multiple wives but it seems to have arisen originally as a consequence of the fall or if you like,the entry of sin. I look at it like this, that part of the process of redemption is the restoration of the original paradigm so that the Apostles
according to Paul had the right to take a believing wife (not wives) on their travels. An overseer needed not to be a polygamist. I am unsure what Jewish practice was in the first century but it is likely that the church followed it as pretty well all the original believers were Jewish.
[ 23. September 2016, 20:01: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I am unsure what Jewish practice was in the first century but it is likely that the church followed it as pretty well all the original believers were Jewish.
Perhaps you missed my post preceding yours, but in the 1st century, polygamy was legal for the Jewish people. So that Paul does not prohibit it is telling.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In the gospels the subject of divorce arises and Jesus words are pretty unequivocal. Essentially he refers to the original paradigm ie one man and his wife not wives and regarding divorce the Mosaic rule was not ideal. In fact in this passage we see the only time he contradicts Moses in a ruling stating Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts but from the beginning it was not so.
It could just as easily be argued that the "original paradigm" was one man married to every woman in the world.
Additionally, the question of whether a man can divorce his wife doesn't really tell us anything about how many concurrent wives he can have. If, as you claim, prohibiting divorce is the "only time [Jesus] contradicts Moses" we must conclude that Jesus approved polygamy, which was permissible under the law of Moses.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Polygamy was practiced and not specifically condemned in that Jacob had multiple wives but it seems to have arisen originally as a consequence of the fall or if you like, the entry of sin.
[citation needed]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I am unsure what Jewish practice was in the first century but it is likely that the church followed it as pretty well all the original believers were Jewish.
Perhaps you missed my post preceding yours, but in the 1st century, polygamy was legal for the Jewish people. So that Paul does not prohibit it is telling.
Fair point bearing in mind that the world was under Roman law not Jewish and that the New Testament only ever mentions monogamous couples within the church. Why would Paul bother to prohibit something if it wasn't an issue for his converts?
[ 23. September 2016, 21:20: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
So, first it is anout Jewish culture until that does not work. And then it is about Roman law. So, were Christians supposed to persecute Christians when that was part of Roman law?
Paul saw fit to tell specific groups they should be monogamous. By conventional rules of logic, this means the rest are not so bound.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Nothing is self-interpreting, ever.
Not even our own intentions, of which we only become aware at some stage not remotely related to the time at which it formed. If anything would ever be transparently self-interpreting to an individual subjectivity, surely it would be that subject's own intentions.
The bible is a whole series of interwoven and juxtaposed texts. They are not even self-defining, and therefore cannot possibly be self-interpreting. They are intended to be interpreted relationally - in the context of a life lived and our relationships with each other within the body of Christ, and our pilgrimage into God, who is not defined by the bible either.
It will never be true however many different ways you find of saying the same thing.
Ooooooh, Thunderbunk. Like Dick Emery's Mandy, you are awful but I like you. More the other way around. "They are intended to be ..."?! WHAT?! They are no such thing.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, first it is anout Jewish culture until that does not work. And then it is about Roman law. So, were Christians supposed to persecute Christians when that was part of Roman law?
Paul saw fit to tell specific groups they should be monogamous. By conventional rules of logic, this means the rest are not so bound.
There's even a folk aphorism describing this: "the exception that proves the rule".
quote:
[T]he presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists. For example, a sign that says "parking prohibited on Sundays" (the exception) "proves" that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule).
Or a rule that takes pains to say deacons are prohibited from having more than one wife (the exception) implies that deacons are selected from a group where this is not universally the case (the rule).
[ 23. September 2016, 22:43: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Fair point bearing in mind that the world was under Roman law not Jewish . . .
Not strictly true. The Romans usually co-opted local power structures rather than replacing them wholesale. We actually see an example of this in the New Testament when Jesus' initial trial is before the Sanhedrin. The Romans mostly had a "hands off" policy unless a province wasn't paying its taxes or was in open revolt. The Roman power structure would have been more than happy to foist off something as mundane as family law on local customary law.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
. . . and that the New Testament only ever mentions monogamous couples within the church. Why would Paul bother to prohibit something if it wasn't an issue for his converts?
Does it? I don't recall any explicit mention of the monogamy of all the couples in the New Testament. Given our cultural conditioning we mostly read it that way, but that doesn't demonstrate authorial intent. Even if this was the case, it wouldn't necessarily prove anything. As lilBuddha pointed out earlier the basic demographic mathematics of human reproduction means that even where it's legally allowed polygamy will be available to relatively few, in practical terms. Historically in societies that have permitted it polygamy was the practice of a few members of the elite and practically unattainable for the masses.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If scripture were self-interpreting there would not be so many sects.
If scripture were self-interpreting, there would not be so many arguments within the same sects.
If scripture were self interpreting, there would not be any unresolved conflicts within the texts.
The Bible cannot be properly read without context. The fact that none of you do is proof of this.
On the other hand there are also vast tracts of agreement among people and between groups on what the basics of Christiaity are. We might not agree on what exactly repentance is but all agree that it is required.
We may disagree on communion rites but most groups have a lords supper practice and similarly,baptism. Being a nay sayer is a bit dog in the mangerish. I wrote the thread title with as a question because to me interpretation is a given. I nevertheless think the 40 authors have a generally harmonious chorus on their 66 song sheets.
But is that enough? Mormons agree with us on those things. The devil really is in the details. What things mean is not so clear as the "clear" meaning of the text you claim exists.
quote:
Polygamy was practiced and not specifically condemned in that Jacob had multiple wives but it seems to have arisen originally as a consequence of the fall or if you like,the entry of sin. I look at it like this, that part of the process of redemption is the restoration of the original paradigm so that the Apostles
according to Paul had the right to take a believing wife (not wives) on their travels. An overseer needed not to be a polygamist. I am unsure what Jewish practice was in the first century but it is likely that the church followed it as pretty well all the original believers were Jewish.
You cannot possibly believe this is the clear, unambiguous reading of the Scriptures on this topic.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Does it? I don't recall any explicit mention of the monogamy of all the couples in the New Testament. Given our cultural conditioning we mostly read it that way, but that doesn't demonstrate authorial intent. Even if this was the case, it wouldn't necessarily prove anything. As lilBuddha pointed out earlier the basic demographic mathematics of human reproduction means that even where it's legally allowed polygamy will be available to relatively few, in practical terms. Historically in societies that have permitted it polygamy was the practice of a few members of the elite and practically unattainable for the masses. [/QB]
I think you're right the bible does not explicitly prohibit polygamy and it is likely there were polygamists in the early church and that is why Paul explicitly prohibits them from leadership. I take the weight of the NT as being on the side of singleness as the ideal (yeah, Jesus was and Paul recommends it in 1Cor 7) but this is certainly not adhered to by Christians today, then if you can't control your desires ![[Cool]](cool.gif) you should marry A wife or A husband. If you have multiple wives before you were a Christian then you should not seek to change this status upon conversion. 1Cor 7.
One can build a case for monogamy being God's intended plan for mankind from Genesis 1 & the polygamy is the result of the fall and is, therefore, sinful.
This multiple wives issue isn't a new issue, the church in parts of Africa struggles with this issue, indeed Sydney Anglicans prefer to forge links with male polygamist bishops rather than female monogamous ones, that's for sure.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
@ Croesus:
I am aware of how the Romans used local structures but whether it affects the family law issue who can know.
On your other point I notice Paul stayed for a year or so with Aquila and his wife Priscilla (Acts 18). But obviously what we know of the issue is assumed from this kind of detail.
--------------------
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:
You cannot possibly believe this is the clear, unambiguous reading of the Scriptures on this topic.
Yes I do. My way of seeing the Bible is as an over arching narrative on the theme of fall and redemption. If in the beginning there was man and wife why would the restoration of this as a strand of redemption be unreasonable? Milton wasn't too dissimilar.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
In those passages from Isaiah and Jeremiah, is there any reason to suppose that 'word' means the Bible? Where the Old Testament says something like 'and the word of the Lord came to Ricardiah', it usually means a prophetic word, not a written word.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That's a literal interpretation that doesn't match reality in the slightest. What man? What wife? What fall?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
In those passages from Isaiah and Jeremiah, is there any reason to suppose that 'word' means the Bible? Where the Old Testament says something like 'and the word of the Lord came to Ricardiah', it usually means a prophetic word, not a written word.
None at all. But, like it or not, you have to admit that the bible-interpreting-bible arc narrative is a strong one. I can see how believing that x=y=z (in terms of interpreting the bible) is a very comforting idea.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
But the Bible isn't supposed to be comforting as much as challenging. Not a manual as much as a guidebook. An over reliance on literalism is a weakness, not a strength.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But the Bible isn't supposed to be comforting as much as challenging. Not a manual as much as a guidebook. An over reliance on literalism is a weakness, not a strength.
Mmm. I think such a thing has a strong hold on those who believe it because it seems to hang together so well.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Nothing is self-interpreting, ever.
Not even our own intentions, of which we only become aware at some stage not remotely related to the time at which it formed. If anything would ever be transparently self-interpreting to an individual subjectivity, surely it would be that subject's own intentions.
The bible is a whole series of interwoven and juxtaposed texts. They are not even self-defining, and therefore cannot possibly be self-interpreting. They are intended to be interpreted relationally - in the context of a life lived and our relationships with each other within the body of Christ, and our pilgrimage into God, who is not defined by the bible either.
It will never be true however many different ways you find of saying the same thing.
Ooooooh, Thunderbunk. Like Dick Emery's Mandy, you are awful but I like you. More the other way around. "They are intended to be ..."?! WHAT?! They are no such thing.
What alternative would you propose? How does the bible fit into your account of the relationship between the divine and the aspect of creation closely created in the image thereof?
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But the Bible isn't supposed to be comforting as much as challenging. Not a manual as much as a guidebook. An over reliance on literalism is a weakness, not a strength.
Mmm. I think such a thing has a strong hold on those who believe it because it seems to hang together so well.
Because passages contrary to their view are given the Procrustes treatment. Or the Cinderella's sisters' feet treatment. You can make anything internally self-consistent by treating anything that disagrees with YOUR interpretation as figurative, and anything that agrees with your interpretation as literal. It's the only way to make it work, and we all do it; we just disagree on which bits to make literal and which bits to make figurative. And that's the point. Deciding where to draw that line cannot be done by appeal to Scripture. By definition.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
You cannot possibly believe this is the clear, unambiguous reading of the Scriptures on this topic.
Yes I do. My way of seeing the Bible is as an over arching narrative on the theme of fall and redemption. If in the beginning there was man and wife why would the restoration of this as a strand of redemption be unreasonable? Milton wasn't too dissimilar.
"[Your] way of reading the Bible" is not the only way. You may think it's the obvious one. But others think theirs is the obvious one. Still others think there is no obvious one. Does this not give you even a teeny bit of self-doubt in the obviousness of your "way"? Not in whether or not it's right. Whether or not it's clear and obvious to all comers.
The alternative would seem to be that you're saying that if someone approaches the Bible with good will and the Holy Spirit they see it YOUR way; and if they don't see it your way it means they lack good will or the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because passages contrary to their view are given the Procrustes treatment. Or the Cinderella's sisters' feet treatment. You can make anything internally self-consistent by treating anything that disagrees with YOUR interpretation as figurative, and anything that agrees with your interpretation as literal. It's the only way to make it work, and we all do it; we just disagree on which bits to make literal and which bits to make figurative. And that's the point. Deciding where to draw that line cannot be done by appeal to Scripture. By definition.
Well just to be clear (and I don't think you were saying it here, but just to be sure) this isn't my view.
Also I think you are right that it depends on interpretation. And yes, I think that it is a bit misleading to say that no interpretation from outside is happening.
But I'm not sure that this is necessarily deliberate - because at times those who hold these beliefs are operating within a certain mindset and worldview which seems to make sense of the bible and the world and so aren't fully aware of what they're doing.
Overall, though, totally agree with what you've said here.
quote:
The alternative would seem to be that you're saying that if someone approaches the Bible with good will and the Holy Spirit they see it YOUR way; and if they don't see it your way it means they lack good will or the Holy Spirit.
Yes, again I think that's very likely what is going on here; the mindset is that those who can't clearly see what the bible is saying in totality are lacking the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Not sure that's quite what Jamat has said, but is what I've heard people say who seem to believe this.
[ 24. September 2016, 15:46: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You can make anything internally self-consistent by treating anything that disagrees with YOUR interpretation as figurative, and anything that agrees with your interpretation as literal. It's the only way to make it work, and we all do it; we just disagree on which bits to make literal and which bits to make figurative.
Yes, everyone does it. But not all approaches are equal.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Milton wasn't too dissimilar.
Milton was a single, human author with a planned story arc. His poems and prose make much more sense being read as self-contained works because this is what they are.
If God dictated the bible to the extent that you seem to feel, then he is a bi-polar, power mad schizophrenic who finally started taking his meds and receiving counseling towards the end of his work.
ETA: It is not that the Bible fails as an internally consistent work, it is that it fails this spectacularly.
[ 24. September 2016, 16:00: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes, everyone does it. But not all approaches are equal.
Agreed.
quote:
If God dictated the bible to the extent that you seem to feel, then he is a bi-polar, power mad schizophrenic who finally started taking his meds and receiving counseling towards the end of his work.
Snrk.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But I'm not sure that this is necessarily deliberate - because at times those who hold these beliefs are operating within a certain mindset and worldview which seems to make sense of the bible and the world and so aren't fully aware of what they're doing.
Yes. The cluelessness of the fundies as to their own actions and motivations is legendary.
--------------------
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 mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
In those passages from Isaiah and Jeremiah, is there any reason to suppose that 'word' means the Bible? Where the Old Testament says something like 'and the word of the Lord came to Ricardiah', it usually means a prophetic word, not a written word.
None at all. But, like it or not, you have to admit that the bible-interpreting-bible arc narrative is a strong one. I can see how believing that x=y=z (in terms of interpreting the bible) is a very comforting idea.
Yes, exactly. It works...until it doesn't. Then you can interpret your troubles as oppression by the Evil One; sent/permitted by God for your growth; quietly wonder and struggle; ask questions; reframe your faith; feel totally lost; leave...
All sorts of people do that about all sorts of things: work, family, Significant Other, fact, theory, reality, sports, beer, politics, coffee, etc.
It's not confined to fundamentalist Protestant Christians taking an approach that seems silly to others. It's the way people are.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes. The cluelessness of the fundies as to their own actions and motivations is legendary.
...mostly because people want to laugh at someone else, rather than realize and deal with their own cluelessness.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes. The cluelessness of the fundies as to their own actions and motivations is legendary.
...mostly because people want to laugh at someone else, rather than realize and deal with their own cluelessness.
Well maybe mostly, but NOT ENTIRELY!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
It's not confined to fundamentalist Protestant Christians taking an approach that seems silly to others. It's the way people are.
Yes. And no. Yes it is natural to warp the world to fit your preconceptions, desires, etc.
But we are not slaves to this and it is not an excuse.
I had written a longer post illustrating why all examples of self-delusion are not equal, but that is too much a tangent.
Suffice it to say that certain viewpoints have an historic and ongoing negative effect on others, even extending into laws that should be neutral.
So my contributions to contending against such myopic views is not for my amusement.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes. And no. Yes it is natural to warp the world to fit your preconceptions, desires, etc.
But we are not slaves to this and it is not an excuse.
Actually, I think it is an "excuse" and simply suggesting that one is "not a slave" to something is to misstate and misunderstand the strength of a narrative that can get a hold on someone.
It is to suggest that there is something wrong with someone who thinks along this line and that if they were to think or try a bit harder, they'd obviously snap out of it.
I don't think it is quite like that - of if it is, then it is very dismissive to put it in those words.
It is the nature of a strong all-encompassing worldview that it is able to take on all-comers. And it isn't anything remarkable to say that the person who finds that this kind of worldview doesn't work any more suddenly rejects it altogether rather than working on a slightly modified worldview. That's kinda the nature of the thing.
quote:
I had written a longer post illustrating why all examples of self-delusion are not equal, but that is too much a tangent.
Suffice it to say that certain viewpoints have an historic and ongoing negative effect on others, even extending into laws that should be neutral.
So my contributions to contending against such myopic views is not for my amusement.
OK but they are rather dismissive, you'd have to agree, right?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because passages contrary to their view are given the Procrustes treatment. Or the Cinderella's sisters' feet treatment. You can make anything internally self-consistent by treating anything that disagrees with YOUR interpretation as figurative, and anything that agrees with your interpretation as literal. It's the only way to make it work, and we all do it; we just disagree on which bits to make literal and which bits to make figurative. And that's the point. Deciding where to draw that line cannot be done by appeal to Scripture. By definition.
Perhaps you might like to cite one of these passages 'they' disagree with?
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because passages contrary to their view are given the Procrustes treatment. Or the Cinderella's sisters' feet treatment. You can make anything internally self-consistent by treating anything that disagrees with YOUR interpretation as figurative, and anything that agrees with your interpretation as literal. It's the only way to make it work, and we all do it; we just disagree on which bits to make literal and which bits to make figurative. And that's the point. Deciding where to draw that line cannot be done by appeal to Scripture. By definition.
Perhaps you might like to cite one of these passages 'they' disagree with?
Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of his blood, you have no life within you.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Nothing is self-interpreting, ever.
Not even our own intentions, of which we only become aware at some stage not remotely related to the time at which it formed. If anything would ever be transparently self-interpreting to an individual subjectivity, surely it would be that subject's own intentions.
The bible is a whole series of interwoven and juxtaposed texts. They are not even self-defining, and therefore cannot possibly be self-interpreting. They are intended to be interpreted relationally - in the context of a life lived and our relationships with each other within the body of Christ, and our pilgrimage into God, who is not defined by the bible either.
It will never be true however many different ways you find of saying the same thing.
Ooooooh, Thunderbunk. Like Dick Emery's Mandy, you are awful but I like you. More the other way around. "They are intended to be ..."?! WHAT?! They are no such thing.
What alternative would you propose? How does the bible fit into your account of the relationship between the divine and the aspect of creation closely created in the image thereof?
Like Jeremy Hardy on Any Questions at the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when asked what his alternative was, he didn't have one and there didn't have to be one. I agree with everything apart from your penultimate sentence. Unless you mean by interpreted relationally by the immediate intended readers in relationship with the writers. Fine. Otherwise not. There was no intent toward us, toward the body of Christ, whatever that was and could be construed to be now.
The Bible consists of many upward streamers from the Earth with one definite downward leader being Earthily documented, like fulgurite, in its definite lightning strike, for me. There is a weak current flowing now. Our response to the Spirit.
Dust swirls up to the light.
Mole he is burrowing; his way to the sunlight. He knows there's someone there; so strong.
Interpretation is an iterative process in the light of the evolution of awareness, starting with those who first expressed their thoughts and feelings in verbal tradition at least 50,000 years ago.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Interpretation is an iterative process in the light of the evolution of awareness, starting with those who first expressed their thoughts and feelings in verbal tradition at least 50,000 years ago.
I have accepted your challenge, and reconsidered what I mean by "relational interpretation". Reflection has brought me so far to an understanding which is not far from what you are saying; it is simply embedding this process of iterative interpretation into the life of faith, removing any suggestion of it being a separate activity.
I see no separate category into which the reading of the bible fits uniquely: there is no immediate revelation, no book of instructions for the rest of life to be found waiting for us in the bible which makes the activity of reading a part of life set apart. We have to take the risk of carrying our interpretative stumblings into the rest of our life of faith, and exposing them to the light of that life, and the light of the life in and with the ever-loving trinity of divine persons in which we are called to dwell, to be able to see truly, however dimly, what we are being shown.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Actually, I think it is an "excuse" and simply suggesting that one is "not a slave" to something is to misstate and misunderstand the strength of a narrative that can get a hold on someone.
A reason is why something happened.
An excuse is why it is OK that the thing happened.
I understand that there is a depth and pervasiveness to many of our behaviours. I do not accept this as an excuse. The civil laws do not and neither do our moral guides. The Bible, the very book under discussion here, does not accept this as an excuse.
quote:
OK but they are rather dismissive, you'd have to agree, right?
Yes, I can be dismissive. But rarely only dismissive.
[fixed code]
[ 25. September 2016, 21:24: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A reason is why something happened.
An excuse is why it is OK that the thing happened.
I understand that there is a depth and pervasiveness to many of our behaviours. I do not accept this as an excuse. The civil laws do not and neither do our moral guides. The Bible, the very book under discussion here, does not accept this as an excuse.
I really don't accept that it is that kind of thing. I don't see that we're into the territory of someone suing someone else in a court of law because they think that the bible is a consistent narrative that hangs together.
Yes, I accept that kind of thing has happened before, but in general there is nothing objectively wrong with believing the bible is a consistent narrative. That idea is not - in and of itself - directly damaging.
quote:
Yes, I can be dismissive. But rarely only dismissive.
You seem to be saying that someone who believes this about the bible should be feeling some kind of remorse because it is bad (possibly even in a legal sense). I don't accept that.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A reason is why something happened.
An excuse is why it is OK that the thing happened.
I understand that there is a depth and pervasiveness to many of our behaviours. I do not accept this as an excuse. The civil laws do not and neither do our moral guides. The Bible, the very book under discussion here, does not accept this as an excuse.
I really don't accept that it is that kind of thing. I don't see that we're into the territory of someone suing someone else in a court of law because they think that the bible is a consistent narrative that hangs together.
Seriously, what?
I was using the law as an example. We already have behavioral rules that are meant to restrain our more base nature, our thinking without proper consideration. Civilisation is constructed on this premise.
Moral frameworks should not be allowed a lesser standard.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
