Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   could moses have written the first five books of the bible
idontlikeforms
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 242 (278220)
01-11-2006 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by arachnophilia
01-10-2006 8:40 PM


Re: turnabout
quote:
careful wording and semantics doesn't make you right. the POINT of the debate is "could moses have written the first five books of the bible?" if moses did not exist, then no, he could not have. if there was no hebrew exodus from egypt, then the moses described in the bible did not exist.
I think you're losing track of what we were discussing on this particular point. Remember, the issue was about "Ur of the Chaldeans." You are the one that brought up early Hebrew presence in Palestine. Which is a separate part of the debate. I was just pointing out, that the question of early Hebrews in Palestine, doesn't negate the fact that you still have no evidence for Chaldeans not being in Mesopotamia in Abraham's time.
quote:
one more time, for posterity. the chaldeans were a dynasty of foreign kings that ruled babylon, starting shortly before the hebrew exile. a member or two of the dynasty ruled starting at about 900 bc. they were foreign invaders -- they came from somewhere else. like the hebrews claim to.
I got this. Still, this is not evidence that they were not in Mesopotamia in Abraham's time, the crucial point that we are debating.
quote:
this is called "turnabout" because it's where you have to present to me evidence that there were no hebrews at all in palestine around the time of moses.
Let us suppose hypothetically that there were Hebrews in Palestine in Moses' time. Now this still does not enable you to refute my point and that is that you have no evidence that the Chaldeans were not in Mesopotamia in Abraham's time. You have to win on that critical point to win on that critical point. Whether there were Hebrews in Palestine a few hundred years later, is frankly irrelevant to that point. Besides, what evidence do oyu habve that Melchizedek was Hebrew anyways?
quote:
did you forget to make a point? you're repeating yourself. perhaps you can explain the abscence of chaldeans between genesis 15 and 2 kings 24? if they were around, why didn't joshua fight them? why weren't they mucking about in samuel?
Maybe they weren't in Palestine at the time? I don't see how this is an issue. Abscense of their being mentioned is not evidence that they were not in Mesopotamia earlier. How does your assumption here logically follow that they couldn't have been in Mesopotamia earlier?
quote:
he could not have been an israelite: israel hadn't been born. but he COULD have been a hebrew: a son of eber. i'm not saying he was, i'm asking you to prove that he wasn't. eber, btw, had a lot of grandsons. and evidently, this priest of yahweh was, well, a believer in yahweh.
Well assuming that the other descendants of Eber were called Hebrews as well, than ya he could have been. But that doesn't in any way invalidate the claims of the Bible. And AFAIK, other descendants of Eber are not referred to as hebrews in the OT, not that their being called this as well changes anything.
quote:
because they said "children of israel" we could infer that it was not a country. i pointed out two things: having a king would make them a nation, so this is not suprising (your point is not a point at all) and second that they are STILL called the childrean of israel WHILE they are country.
This does not logically follow.
quote:
you used jewish tradition as a support. but when it turns out that jewish tradition also strongly questions your position, it's inconsequential. jewish tradition is either valid and important, or not.
I already explained this to you. It is the ancient Rabbinic tradition that matters, that is what is closer to the time of the authorship of the OT, and its canonization. Medeival divergences from the orthodox rabbinc views don't matter because they are much later. Besides those medieval rabbis were not arguing against Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, only Mosiac authorship of a handful of lines in the Pentateuch. There is a mountain of difference between their views and the JEDP theory. If they were alive today and participating in this debate, although they may not agree with me 100%, they would decidedly be on my side in this debate, not yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by arachnophilia, posted 01-10-2006 8:40 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2006 5:21 PM idontlikeforms has not replied
 Message 213 by purpledawn, posted 01-11-2006 6:33 PM idontlikeforms has replied
 Message 216 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2006 12:54 AM idontlikeforms has not replied

  
idontlikeforms
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 242 (278223)
01-11-2006 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by MangyTiger
01-10-2006 9:06 PM


Re: Reply to Msg 181 by idontlikeforms
quote:
Where does it say the author has to be identified? All this says is that the author is someone other than the plagiarist.
Invented that subtle component of the definition to plagairism?
Now I suspect that it is true that in a modern court of law you could only be sued for plagiarism for copying a work of known authorship, but that's neither here nor there.
Good eye. I concede your point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by MangyTiger, posted 01-10-2006 9:06 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
idontlikeforms
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 242 (278229)
01-11-2006 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by purpledawn
01-10-2006 7:20 PM


Re: J & E Sources
quote:
Since you supposedly consider the use of different names for God a deliberate act of the author, I asked that you please show me how that applies to the verses I shared in Message 114.
IOW, provide the aspect of God's character that each name represents and show how that aspect is being represented by that name in the specified verses.
I'm not arguing against names' of God being used interchangeably. I'm arguing against names of God, consistently and only, being used because one of the alleged J, E, D, or P authors only knows one of those names.
Now if you make a list of the known names of God, in the OT, you will find that those names have a tendency to have relevent specific context to their usage. Does that mean that 100% of the time, there is a clear cut context to their usage? I honestly don't know. I suppose some of them are just used because it was a known name for God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by purpledawn, posted 01-10-2006 7:20 PM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2006 5:03 PM idontlikeforms has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 199 of 242 (278235)
01-11-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by idontlikeforms
01-11-2006 4:43 PM


Re: J & E Sources
I'm not arguing against names' of God being used interchangeably. I'm arguing against names of God, consistently and only, being used because one of the alleged J, E, D, or P authors only knows one of those names.
no, you're still missing it.
yahweh is a name.
elohim is a title.
the elohist uses ONLY elohim until exodus 6. the jahwist uses yahweh and elohim together ONLY. the elohist does, indeed, know god's name. he uses it after it's revealed to moses.
Now if you make a list of the known names of God, in the OT, you will find that those names have a tendency to have relevent specific context to their usage.
well, you see, that sort of thing isn't possible if you're not willing to identify the cultural contexts and focii of various documents. why do you accept differing cultural contexts and focii -- but fail to see that they lines up with the way the documents divide?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-11-2006 4:43 PM idontlikeforms has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-11-2006 5:08 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
idontlikeforms
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 242 (278236)
01-11-2006 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by arachnophilia
01-10-2006 9:13 PM


Re: two wrongs, lying in the bible
quote:
but god did NOT tell him that, did he?
According to Jacob, He did and I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Jacob was lying, so AFIAC, until you can present such evidence, you have no point to press here.
quote:
because laban does not change the agreement. laban changed an EARLIER agreement, regarding working for him as a dowry for his daughter. even still, you missed the point: laban did not set the terms for the agreement. jacob did. jacob said laban did it -- that was a lie.
The changes in the terms that Jacob had to work for Rachel and Leah is a separate issue. It seems clear to me that your argument for Jacob setting the terms and not Laban is pointless. The fact is that they both agreed to them. It seems likely to me that Jacob felt obligated to fulfill the full amount of years of work for the share in the flock that he got off the bat. If the sheep and goats kept giving birth to speckled and spotted offspring than it makes sense to me that Laban would object and probably even suspect foul play on the part of Jacob. Jacob, was getting additional sheep and goats out of the deal, and he also was connected by marriage to Laban. That he didn't say, "hey wait a minute, this is not what we originally agreed on" and then promptly left because Laban renigged on his initial agreement, makes perfect sense to me. Perhaps this is unimaginable to you. But I view it as quite logical and in no way a problem for Biblical honesty.
quote:
so when reality and the bible disagree, you side with reality? good to know. but clearly there is a correlation between jacob's actions and the outcomes.
I've already addressed this and I see no problem with the way I view it, neither have you said anything that causes me to have to seriously consider otherwise.
quote:
quote:Gen 30:41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.
Gen 30:42 But when the cattle were feeble, he put [them] not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.
doesn't that sound causal to you? rods before cattle = spotted offspring = jacob's. no rods before the cattle = clean offspring = laban's. jacob puts the rods before the better cattle, and takes the better cattle. he does not put the rods before the weeker ones, and leaves those for laban.
do you really think jacob had nothing to do with it?
This has already been addressed and no offense but I get tired of the repititon. If you want an answer to this, simply re-read my earlier posts and try to spot what evidently you have forgotten.
quote:
yes forms, that was the idea. you're contended that jacob did no wrong, when he did. you are saying that he was justified in doing so.
He schemed to rip Laban off. Was he actually doing this? No. But in the Bible not all sin is an action, sometimes it's a thought or a motive.
quote:
do you honestly think that all of the patriarchs are exemplarary? no one in the bible ever lies? the point of this is not that jacob lied -- it's that the bible presented a story that is frankly very unrealistic with modern science. the fact that jacob lied, and stole some sheep, is the point of the story, not my point.
We've already gone over this, no new information here, so I'm just going to skip answering.
quote:
because the chapter before shows the non-streaked, non-spotted, and non-grizzled ones breeding too. NOT all of the he-goats that lept upon the flock were streaked, spotted, or grizzled. rather, jacob controlled which sheep and which goats would be born spotted.
you seriously miss the point of the story, here.
We've already gone over this. I realize that as far as online debates are concerned, I happen to have a very long attention span and almost always keep track of the points made in debates better than my opponents. But I don't see why I should be punished for this. So if you want an answer here, just re-read what I've already posted.
Sorry but I don't see any new information in the rest of your argument on this point, and I feel I gave good answers for it already too. So I'm going to skip responding to this part of the debate, unless you present new info.
quote:
wanna count 'em? i see 5 reproaches. is that an innaccurate statement in job? or the same as me saying "a million times" and not literally meaning a million, just a lot?
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps not all 10 are mentioned to avoid being longwinded?
quote:
do you agree that characters in the bible lie? or no?
I've already responded to this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by arachnophilia, posted 01-10-2006 9:13 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2006 12:35 AM idontlikeforms has replied

  
idontlikeforms
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 242 (278240)
01-11-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by arachnophilia
01-11-2006 5:03 PM


Re: J & E Sources
quote:
no, you're still missing it.
yahweh is a name.
elohim is a title.
This doesn't change anything.
quote:
the elohist uses ONLY elohim until exodus 6. the jahwist uses yahweh and elohim together ONLY. the elohist does, indeed, know god's name. he uses it after it's revealed to moses.
And? I happen to think Moses used both. So what? I think he edited Genesis. So no problems here for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2006 5:03 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2006 5:25 PM idontlikeforms has replied

  
idontlikeforms
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 242 (278242)
01-11-2006 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by macaroniandcheese
01-10-2006 10:20 PM


Re: J & E Sources
quote:
the bigger problem is that you think anyone holds this assumption.
It's more like they somehow think it doesn't apply to their own views.
quote:
i was speaking more broadly. if the evangelical scholars of the past or present really had it figured out THERE WOULDN'T BE any 'liberal' scholars. whatever a liberal scholar is anyways.
This doesn't negate what I just said. The NEW theory isn't necessasarily better or more accurate. Information is sometimes lost or ignored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-10-2006 10:20 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
idontlikeforms
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 242 (278244)
01-11-2006 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by arachnophilia
01-10-2006 9:29 PM


Re: J & E Sources
quote:
you mean in the middle of a verse? no.
the original documents of the hebrew bible, you see, lacked vowels, punctuation, and spaces between words. your above text would look like this, in english, reversed and with the substition of v for u and o, and a for certain other instances of vowels (like in hebrew)
quote:AMYHLASYSGSPAHTVSRHMLBVRPYNAYSTNVDA
RFMLBRPARHTRSHTTNSALDGBHVHYRTLNHTDN
LANASVPSRPVTSHNHTHCYHWYROAHTPDEJAHT
GSPAFALDMAHTNANSYVDLCYGV
now, did you spot the typo i made?
considering that a fair number of verses in the bible start with a vav ("and") it's really quite full of run-on sentances. where do we choose to break them? well, there's no vav in the middle of this sentance, genesis 2:4. look for it, it's not there. it's a good breaking place -- one part is the end of the first story, the other the beginning of the second.
but i suppose you think verse numbers are inspired too?
I'm aware of all of this. You're missing my point. There should be a logical split in the storyline and that would be where two different stories were combined. Now if there is no logical split like that, then you have to assume that the story was merely edited and then by implication the editor made an ilogical change. IOW, he lied, and clumsily. I find that hard to beleive and happen to think that Moses writing in that way, simply matter of factly, makes more sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by arachnophilia, posted 01-10-2006 9:29 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2006 5:38 PM idontlikeforms has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 204 of 242 (278246)
01-11-2006 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by idontlikeforms
01-11-2006 4:31 PM


Re: turnabout
I think you're losing track of what we were discussing on this particular point. Remember, the issue was about "Ur of the Chaldeans." You are the one that brought up early Hebrew presence in Palestine. Which is a separate part of the debate. I was just pointing out, that the question of early Hebrews in Palestine, doesn't negate the fact that you still have no evidence for Chaldeans not being in Mesopotamia in Abraham's time.
i'm making a logical point here. you cannot prove there was not a single hebrew in palestine just before the exodus.
it's hard to prove an abscence. what you're saying is the equivalent of "there is no evidence for god, therefore he exists." it doesn't follow. the burden of proof is on YOU to establish that there were chaldeans in mesopotamia during the time of moses.
i don't know how you fail to see what i'm saying here. maybe i'm not being straightforward enough? too subtle? i cannot prove that there were no chaldeans in mesopotamia during moses's time anymoe than you can prove there were no hebrews there either. i brought to point up to turn your own claim about on you, and demand the same thing of you that you demand of me. if you can't do it -- why should i be able to meet your demand?
rather, i have demonstrated that chaldean presence in babylonia is unlikely with the evidence we have -- the evidence that they invaded from the arabian peninsula.
Abscense of their being mentioned is not evidence that they were not in Mesopotamia earlier. How does your assumption here logically follow that they couldn't have been in Mesopotamia earlier?
normally, and on its own, it doesn't. but taken that the babylonia empire was one of continually invading and conquering empires -- one of which was the chaldeans -- the lack of evidence of them anywhere in the bible until they point we know we they invaded helps corroborate the idea that they came from somewhere else.
because they said "children of israel" we could infer that it was not a country. i pointed out two things: having a king would make them a nation, so this is not suprising (your point is not a point at all) and second that they are STILL called the childrean of israel WHILE they are country.
This does not logically follow
premise: the phrase "children of israel" indicates the abscence of a hebrew nation at the time of authorship
premise: the bible was written mostly contemporarily, and the end of kings is a later epilogue.
evidence: the phrase "children of israel" is used in the book of kings while israel and judah are nations.
reducto ad-absurdum.
pick a premise to be wrong.
I already explained this to you. It is the ancient Rabbinic tradition that matters, that is what is closer to the time of the authorship of the OT, and its canonization.
ok, let's have some of these ancient rabbinic traditions. cite me some specifics.
does closer mean correct? do you believe in the apocrypha and pseudepigraphica? those are some pretty ancient rabbinic traditions, some older than the nt. if you accept the new testament, why not the apocrypha?
Besides those medieval rabbis were not arguing against Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, only Mosiac authorship of a handful of lines in the Pentateuch.
they doubted the authenticity of the tradition that moses wrote ALL of the torah. they were arguing that there parts in the torah in that moses did not write. to refute a claim of entirety or perfect, one needs only show one counterexample.
There is a mountain of difference between their views and the JEDP theory.
yes but one is logically derived from the other.
If they were alive today and participating in this debate, although they may not agree with me 100%, they would decidedly be on my side in this debate, not yours.
yeah? shall we ask some of today's rabbi's?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-11-2006 4:31 PM idontlikeforms has not replied

  
idontlikeforms
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 242 (278247)
01-11-2006 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by arachnophilia
01-10-2006 9:39 PM


Re: academia
quote:
in other words, you're not interested in hearing they're argument which we are reporting secondhand? it's a wonder people ever convert to christianity based on our secondhand representation of christ.
Do I demand you read lengthy books about Evangelical refutations of the JEDP theory? No. So no hypocrisy here on my part.
quote:
you love semantics, don't you? when something is ambiguous, it has two or more meanings. havign two or meanings means that something is not precise. not precise is the definition of vague. "ambiguous" isa subset of "vague" oh, and:
Read the first definition listed. That is what I meant, not vague.
the first definition you posted says: "intended to mislead." did you mean that the bible's grammar is intended to mislead? somehow, i don't think that was your point.
Arach, just re-read the definition a few times till it clicks. Key in on words like "or" which split the meaning of a word up into separate meanings. See many words have multiple meanings any time you see "or" in its definitions. I never used the word "ambiguous" to mean "vague" in our debate here. Never! And I still used the word correctly too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by arachnophilia, posted 01-10-2006 9:39 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2006 5:36 PM idontlikeforms has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 206 of 242 (278248)
01-11-2006 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by idontlikeforms
01-11-2006 5:08 PM


Re: J & E Sources
This doesn't change anything.
it's called background information.
And? I happen to think Moses used both. So what? I think he edited Genesis. So no problems here for me
you could happen to think that god himself presented moses with a cd-rom copy of the chumash and halftorot, laid in solid gold. i don't care. you're refuting the evidence with your personal opinion. that doesn't work.
the evidence is for inconsistent usage. it's like oil, and water -- not thoroughly mixed.
you also missed another point: j and e continue into exodus. so if they are sources moses editted together, then he editted exodus together, too. this is starting to look like the bit where joshua cites another book in reference to his own life.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-11-2006 5:08 PM idontlikeforms has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-11-2006 5:30 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
idontlikeforms
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 242 (278249)
01-11-2006 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by purpledawn
01-11-2006 6:20 AM


Re: Laban & Jacob J & E Versions
quote:
This is where the Documentary Hypothesis (DH) can show why the problem exists.
Genesis 30:24b-43 & Genesis 31:17-18a is a J writing. Genesis 31:1-2, 4-16 and Genesis 31:19-21 is an E writing.
In the J story, Jacob sets up the agreement. In the E story, Laban made the terms of the agreement and apparently changed them.
In the J story, Jacob's actions supposedly caused the animals to speckle etc.; but in the E story, God made the changes as Laban made changes.
The stories weren't meant to go together. Putting them together causes a contradiction as you noted.
To me the story already makes sense. I see no reason to suppose multiple original authorship. I think it's possible that Moses used more than one source, but I see no reason to have to assume this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by purpledawn, posted 01-11-2006 6:20 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by purpledawn, posted 01-11-2006 6:18 PM idontlikeforms has replied

  
idontlikeforms
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 242 (278251)
01-11-2006 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by arachnophilia
01-11-2006 5:25 PM


Re: J & E Sources
quote:
you could happen to think that god himself presented moses with a cd-rom copy of the chumash and halftorot, laid in solid gold. i don't care. you're refuting the evidence with your personal opinion. that doesn't work.
the evidence is for inconsistent usage. it's like oil, and water -- not thoroughly mixed.
you also missed another point: j and e continue into exodus. so if they are sources moses editted together, then he editted exodus together, too. this is starting to look like the bit where joshua cites another book in reference to his own life.
I think that it is more meaningful to debate specific passages, rather than an overall interpretation of the Pentateuch's authorship. As I've already explained, I don't see how the superficial divisions of the JEDP theory are compelling. Remember, I think Moses wrote most of the Pentateuch, shortly after each event happened. That makes alot of sense out of different words being used interchangeably.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2006 5:25 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 209 of 242 (278253)
01-11-2006 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by idontlikeforms
01-11-2006 5:24 PM


Re: academia
Arach, just re-read the definition a few times till it clicks. Key in on words like "or" which split the meaning of a word up into separate meanings. See many words have multiple meanings any time you see "or" in its definitions. I never used the word "ambiguous" to mean "vague" in our debate here. Never! And I still used the word correctly too.
you know what's really funny? you like to smooth out the contradictions and inconsistencies of specifics in the bible -- but when present with very similar definitions you point how markedly different they are. let's resort to a math analogy again.
1. let X be the set of integers greater than 1.
2. Y = 2.
3. true or false: Y is an element of set X. 2 > 1, true.
1 was the mathematical definition of "vague." 2 was the mathematical definition of "ambiguous." ambiguous is a subset of vague. you really should, like, take a logic class or something. you're like my high school teacher who couldn't understand that "most" is a subset of "some." he'd ask questions like "t/f, some people sleep at night" and would mark us all down when we said was true.
as for "intended to decieve" perhaps you were ambiguous about which part of the first definition you meant. or is it just vague?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-11-2006 5:24 PM idontlikeforms has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-13-2006 3:21 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 210 of 242 (278256)
01-11-2006 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by idontlikeforms
01-11-2006 5:18 PM


ten times!
I'm aware of all of this. You're missing my point. There should be a logical split in the storyline and that would be where two different stories were combined.
it's been pointed out to you ten times!
it's in genesis 2:4. one half is the last words of chapter 1's story, and the second is the introduction to chapter 2.
IOW, he lied, and clumsily. I find that hard to beleive and happen to think that Moses writing in that way, simply matter of factly, makes more sense.
perhaps you should look up the definitions of "edit" and "lie."

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-11-2006 5:18 PM idontlikeforms has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-13-2006 3:32 PM arachnophilia 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