Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 1482 (783522)
05-05-2016 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Faith
05-05-2016 8:09 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
But this is how many doctrines are constructed, the most familiar one being the construction of the Trinity from dozens of different references to Father, Son and Holy Ghost throughout the Old and New Testaments
The method of construction you describe is extremely problematic. It is in fact exactly the way both YEC and Gap theologists come up with incompatible views of the Bible. This very discussion recommends against proceeding as you suggest.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 05-05-2016 8:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 05-05-2016 10:04 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 167 of 1482 (783523)
05-05-2016 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by NoNukes
05-05-2016 10:00 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
The method of construction you describe is extremely problematic. It is in fact exactly the way both YEC and Gap theologists come up with incompatible views of the Bible. This very discussion recommends against proceeding as you suggest.
Oh absolute flaming nonsense! Do you deny the Trinity? Do you deny how it is derived?
I don't know yet what Gap Theory puts together for what purpose so I don't have an opinion about it. But I don't see anything YECs do that justifies your complaint.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by NoNukes, posted 05-05-2016 10:00 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 168 of 1482 (783524)
05-05-2016 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Faith
05-05-2016 8:22 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Let me address your addition.
Faith writes:
This demonstrates that the entire Bible works together to reveal God's plan, and that is in fact the opposite of what you are saying: it shows that God is overseeing the Bible since no single writer has any idea about how these verses are going to come together in the end; only God does.
No Faith, it does not demonstrate any such thing and certainly does not indicate God has a clue what we do. It does indicate that people can and do dishonestly select data that supports their prior conclusions while rejecting data from the same set that refutes those positions. As I pointed out above, there is a basic culture of honesty in Science that seems totally missing when it comes to apologetics and dogma. Any scientist that behaved that way would get fired and rightly so.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 05-05-2016 8:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 05-05-2016 10:10 PM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 169 of 1482 (783525)
05-05-2016 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by jar
05-05-2016 10:06 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
There is no reason whatever why anyone would have believed in a Trinity if it weren't that they found it in the Bible. It's in fact awfully hard to persuade people of it so your idea that scriptures were picked to justify a preconceived idea is nonsense,.
And the passages that ARE in the Bible speak so clearly and unequivocally to the Trinity as it was subsequently defined in the Councils, it's impossible to suggest that anybody just poked around and found vague statements to support a preconceived wish. There's nothing vague about them.'
And all that being the case, only God could have designed His word to reveal doctrines that depend on many different writers in different times for it all to come together as the coherent whole it is.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by jar, posted 05-05-2016 10:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by jar, posted 05-05-2016 10:21 PM Faith has replied
 Message 220 by arachnophilia, posted 05-10-2016 3:51 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 170 of 1482 (783527)
05-05-2016 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
05-05-2016 10:10 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Faith writes:
There is no reason whatever why anyone would have believed in a Trinity if it weren't that they found it in the Bible. It's in fact awfully hard to persuade people of it so your idea that scriptures were picked to justify a preconceived idea is nonsense,.
Of course there were reasons; the goal was to declare political opponents as heretics. That was sufficient reason. And it was not clear since it took nearly four hundred years for the concept to get codified as I have pointed out to you before Faith. The Trinity was not even included in the original version of the Nicene Creed.
Faith writes:
And the passages that ARE in the Bible speak so clearly and unequivocally to the Trinity as it was subsequently defined in the Councils, it's impossible to suggest that anybody just poked around and found vague statements to support a preconceived wish. There's nothing vague about them.'
But it really is vague as I have shown you the Holy spirit included based only on two unrelated passages; being included in the baptismal forms and based on blasphemy of the Holy Spirit being unforgivable.
Remember Faith, despite your beliefs there are still non-Trinitarian Christians today.
Faith writes:
And all that being the case, only God could have designed His word to reveal doctrines that depend on many different writers in different times for it all to come together as the coherent whole it is.
Nonsense Faith, God could not even design the Bible so that all the Canons recognized the same books.
There is no coherent whole to any Bible. That is simply yet another unsupported assertion refuted by the facts and reality.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 05-05-2016 10:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 05-06-2016 4:00 AM jar has replied
 Message 178 by arachnophilia, posted 05-07-2016 10:09 PM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 171 of 1482 (783537)
05-06-2016 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by jar
05-05-2016 10:21 PM


Trinity a doctrine found scattered in the Bible
But it really is vague as I have shown you the Holy spirit included based only on two unrelated passages; being included in the baptismal forms and based on blasphemy of the Holy Spirit being unforgivable.
If you are saying (and it's not clear what you are saying) that the Biblical references to the Holy Spirit that include it in the Trinity are limited to only those two passages, you are very wrong. Here is a typical outllne of the Biblical sources of the concepts that form the Trinity, and the sources for the Holy Spirit are fairly extensive:
The Holy Spirit Is God
A. Equated with God: Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor. 3:17-18
B. Has the incommunicable attributes of God 1. Eternal: Heb. 9:14
2. Omnipresent: Psa. 139:7
3. Omniscient: 1 Cor. 2:10-11
C. Involved in all the works of God 1. Creation: Gen. 1:2; Psa. 104:30
2. Incarnation: Matt. 1:18, 1:20; Luke 1:35
3. Resurrection: Rom. 1:4; 8:11
4. Salvation: Rom. 8:1-27
D. Is a person 1. Has a name: Matt. 28:19; note that even though "name" might be used of a nonperson, here, in conjunction with the Father and the Son, it must be used of a person
2. Is the "Helper" a. Is another Helper: John 14:16, cf. 1 John 2:1; note also that "Helper" (parakltos) was used in Greek always or almost always of persons.
b. Is sent in Jesus' name, to teach: John 14:26.
c. Will arrive, and then bear witness: John 15:26-27.
d. Is sent by Christ to convict of sin, will speak not on his own but on behalf of Christ, will glorify Christ, thus exhibiting humility: John 16:7-14.
3. Is the Holy Spirit, in contrast to unholy spirits: Mark 3:22-30, cf. Matt. 12:32; 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 John 3:24-4:6.
4. Speaks, is quoted as speaking: John 16:13; Acts 1:16; 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 13:2; 16:6; 20:23; 21:11; 28:25-27; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 3:7-11; 10:15-17; 1 Pet. 1:11; Rev. 2:7, 2:11, 2:17, 2:29; 3:6, 3:13, 3:22.
5. Can be lied to: Acts 5:3
6. Can make decisions, judgments: Acts 15:28
7. Intercedes for Christians with the Father: Rom. 8:26
8. "Impersonal" language used of the Spirit paralled by language used of other persons a. The Holy Spirit as fire: Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16; cf. Ex. 3:2-4; Deut. 4:24; 9:3; Heb. 12:29
b. The Holy Spirit poured out: Acts 2:17, 2:33; cf. Isa. 53:12; Phil. 2:17; 2 Tim. 4:6
c. Being filled with the Holy Spirit: Eph. 5:18, etc.; cf. Eph. 3:17, 3:19;
And that's just references to the Holy Spirit as God; the next section after this one shows how Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all separate Persons as well as God.
cfm
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by jar, posted 05-05-2016 10:21 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by jar, posted 05-06-2016 7:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 172 of 1482 (783540)
05-06-2016 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Faith
05-06-2016 4:00 AM


Re: Trinity a doctrine found scattered in the Bible
We are moving way away from the topic Faith but if you would like to discuss the Trinity concept yet again, start a thread on it. I will happily present my case.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 05-06-2016 4:00 AM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 173 of 1482 (783543)
05-06-2016 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by ICANT
05-04-2016 12:51 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
All these people perished in whatever happened that caused the condition found in Genesis 1:2
I am confused by your position here. Genesis 5 presents a continuous genealogy that records from Adam to Noah with ages for all of the characters, no mention of a break where all the people you mention are wiped out in whatever happened in Gen 1:2.
Also you skip all of Genesis 1 after verse 2 in your chronology. Why?
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by ICANT, posted 05-04-2016 12:51 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 1:45 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 174 of 1482 (783586)
05-06-2016 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
05-05-2016 7:41 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi Faith
Faith writes:
I am right now beginning to read two books by believers in Gap Theory, Earth's Earliest Ages by G. H. Pember
I have studied Pember but have not read Barnhouse.
You might find Custance interesting. The Arthur C. Custance Centre
But I do not believe in a gap of any kind.
quote:
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
According to this verse everything had to be completed in six light periods and six dark periods. With God ceasing creating at the start of the seventh day.
Everything in Message 154 took place in the light period (day) God created the heavens and the earth that had ended with the dark period at Genesis 1:2.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.
Edited by ICANT, : spelling
Edited by ICANT, : fix quote

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 05-05-2016 7:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 05-07-2016 8:09 AM ICANT has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 175 of 1482 (783597)
05-07-2016 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by ICANT
05-06-2016 9:13 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hello ICANT
I just don't follow your thinking at all. I get that you don't believe in gap theory because you keep saying it but you also seem to make a big distinction of some sort between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Beyond that I just don't get what you are saying about any of it. You seem to make passages normally read as future into descriptions of the past. But I'm not sure any of this describes what you think so I shouldn't even try to say.
Gap Theory is at least a common enough idea and held by enough known theologians to be worth learning about. I probably won't agree with it as the answer to the science challenges, but it's interesting to think of there having been a period hinted at in Genesis 1:1 that existed before the six-day Creation began as recorded from Genesis 1:2 on, in which the drama of Lucifer/Satan occurred.
Is the view of creation you are talking about your own reading of the Bible or are there any theologians who also have that view?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by ICANT, posted 05-06-2016 9:13 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by ICANT, posted 05-07-2016 11:16 PM Faith has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 176 of 1482 (783710)
05-07-2016 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
04-22-2016 3:13 AM


there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
ICANT writes:
This verse tells us that "In the beginning" is when the heaven and the earth was created.
in fact, it does not tell us this. genesis 1:1 reads,
quote:
בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.
בְּרֵאשִׁית has a construct ending, had it meant "in the beginning," comma, the word here would be בתאשונה. the ית- here ties to the next word in a construct chain. see for instance, genesis 10:10,
quote:
וַתְּהִי רֵאשִׁית מַמְלַכְתּוֹ בָּבֶל, וְאֶרֶךְ וְאַכַּד וְכַלְנֵה, בְּאֶרֶץ, שִׁנְעָר.
where it's tied in a construct pair, רֵאשִׁית מַמְלַכְתּוֹ, "the beginning of his kingdom". obviously this poses a problem as written, because here בָּרָא has the incorrect niqudot, and should be pointed as an infinitive construct as in genesis 5:1,
quote:
בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם, בִּדְמוּת אֱלֹהִים, עָשָׂה אֹתוֹ.
where it serves a similar function. it must have these points (note that none of the consonants change) because it must be functioning as a noun, because the word that precedes it is in the construct state.
note that this means the phrase forms a subordinate clause, "in the beginning of god creating," or "when god began to create," (cf: the nJPS, under orlinsky), and the next verses describe precisely what the cosmos was like when god began to create (verse 2) and what god's first action was that began creation (verse 3). see rashi's commentary:
quote:
as our Rabbis stated (Letters of R. Akiva , letter beth ; Gen. Rabbah 1:6; Lev. Rabbah 36:4): [God created the world] for the sake of the Torah, which is called (Prov. 8:22): the beginning of His way, and for the sake of Israel, who are called (Jer. 2:3) the first of His grain. But if you wish to explain it according to its simple meaning, explain it thus: At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, the earth was astonishing with emptiness, and darknessand God said, ‘Let there be light.’ But Scripture did not come to teach the sequence of the Creation, to say that these came first, for if it came to teach this, it should have written:At first (בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה) He created the heavens and the earth, for there is no רֵאשִׁית in Scripture that is not connected to the following word, [i.e., in the construct state] like (ibid. 27:1):In the beginning of (בְּרֵאשִית) the reign of Jehoiakim ; (below 10:10)the beginning of (רֵאשִׁית) his reign ; (Deut. 18:4)the first (רֵאשִׁית) of your corn. Here too, you say בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אלֹהִים, like בְּרֵאשִׁית בְּרֹא, in the beginning of creating. And similar to this is,At the beginning of the Lord’s speaking (דִּבֶּר) to Hosea, (Hos. 1:2), i.e., at the beginning of the speaking (דִּבּוּרוֹ) of the Holy One, Blessed be He, to Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, etc.
Just a moment...
so the idea that there is somehow a gap immediately following genesis 1:1 is untenable -- the first verse is literally, grammatically dependent on third verse. there is no gap, because genesis 1:1 categorically does not tell us that creation happened in some time we're calling the beginning. that doesn't really even make any sense.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 04-22-2016 3:13 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 1:40 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 189 by kbertsche, posted 05-08-2016 11:10 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 177 of 1482 (783711)
05-07-2016 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Adequate
04-23-2016 3:51 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
Well, people have always read the Bible as meaning they were created at the same moment. So your argument would have to be that the Bible is in fact correct, but is so badly written that no-one knew what it meant until we could read it in the light of modern science.
in fact, there is part of this verse that is grammatically unclear (in the hebrew), but it's mostly a product of masoretic addition of vowel points, and it's been understood since the middle ages in jewish commentaries (notably rashi). see my post above.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2016 3:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 178 of 1482 (783712)
05-07-2016 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by jar
05-05-2016 10:21 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
jar writes:
The Trinity was not even included in the original version of the Nicene Creed.
well, the nicene creed was the first major step towards a codified version of the doctrine of the trinity, particularly in its rejection of arianism. the fun part is that they were definitely still figuring out how to properly phrase their beliefs, as it contains this particular anathema at the end:
quote:
Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ὅτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεωςοὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, [ἢ κτιστόν,] τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, [τούτους] ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ [καὶ ἀποστολικὴ] ἐκκλησία.
But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable' they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
the bolded words, "hypostasis" and "ousias", which the nicenes here are saying identical between the son and the father, became the two different categories of numbers in trinity, 3 hypostases in 1 ousia. so, in a sense, the nicene creed actually denies the trinity as it came to be formulated.
Edited by arachnophilia, : tagging difficulties

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by jar, posted 05-05-2016 10:21 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by jar, posted 05-07-2016 10:20 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 179 of 1482 (783714)
05-07-2016 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by arachnophilia
05-07-2016 10:09 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
There were several variations on the Trinity concept around that time; for example of God and Word and Wisdom as well as the Gnostic concept which had the Divine emanating Christ and Wisdom (and other emanations as well).
The point is that what we see is an evolving dogma driven as much by politics as theology.
AbE:
I tried to point some of that out in another thread Message 84 of The Marketing Of Christianity.
Edited by jar, : add links to earlier post

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by arachnophilia, posted 05-07-2016 10:09 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 180 of 1482 (783717)
05-07-2016 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
05-07-2016 8:09 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi Faith
Faith writes:
I just don't follow your thinking at all.
That is the problem a lot of people think.
Everytime I think I get into trouble, so I try not to think.
My belief has been with me since 1949 when I was 10 years old.
It was simple enough that a 10 year old could understand it.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Man one formed from the dust of the ground.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Genesis
2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Man two
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Man 1
First life form on earth, day one.
Placed in a garden.
Forbidden from eating the fruit of one tree.
Woman formed from a bone of the man.
Died in the same light period he was formed from the ground.
No generations listed as in Genesis chapter 5.
Man 2
Mankind of Genesis 1:27 created after all other life forms.
Created male and female on day six.
Never placed in a garden.
Never forbidden from eating any fruit.
The generations of this man given in Genesis chapter 5.
So I don't think the Bible says what is recorded above.
I just believe and accept it.
Now if you want to try to convince me the Bible does not say what it says you may try. But don't be surprised if I believe the Bible rather than believe you.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 05-07-2016 8:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 05-08-2016 5:09 AM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024