|
Didaktikon
|
1#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31540
Posts:1514
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:18/09/2007 02:27:37)
Good morning, all.
I offer this small post in response to a question emailed to me by a forum member yesterday, "why is the Bible so hard to understand?" 
First, let me clearly state that this is a perfectly fair and valid question to ask. Especially in light of the Protestant claim that Scripture is 'perspicuous' ('clear', or 'easily understood')!
To begin with, I will also state that I fully support the Reformation doctrine of the 'perspicuity of Scripture'. I can do so recognising two salient points: (1) the doctrine itself pertains to the notion that the Bible is completely clear "...with respect to those matters pertaining to the grasping of life, eternal...", and (2) that the standard of general education of the Reformers themselves, and of those within the scholastic tradition they stood in line too, is quite removed from most Christians of today (who are, bye-and-large, largely unsophisticated with respect to the fields of knowledge that combine to form biblical and theological literacy). These two main points fairly well inform my response to the question posed above.
I think it best to highlight a significant feature: Revivalists do not stand in the historic stream of Christian learning. Completely the opposite is the case, they stand well outside of it! In other words, Revivalists are unable to avail themselves of 2,000 years of consistent and persistent study on Scripture, its effects, its meanings and the outcomes that result. Revivalists simplistically, and naively, assume that they can approach Scripture with their 20th and 21st century western views, and grasp its multiplied meanings aright!
The fact of the 'multiplied meanings' leads to the next point. Scripture, being God's timeless Word addressed to humanity via two time-bound human cultures, isn't 'flat' or 'one-dimensional'. One must appreciate this fact if one is to make sense of much of it, so as to rightly discern God's Word for us, today. 'Sense' must develop into 'significance' (and it must be acknowledged that not all passages within Holy Writ speak with the same degree of authority, even when addressing the same subject), and the only way that this can take place is to properly appreciate the range of contexts which must be grappled with and understood so as to enable such (geographical, historical, cultural, linguistic, religious, social, economic, etc).
In summary (this is intended as a brief overview of the subject) when considering point '(1)', above: the average person can read the Bible for him or herself, and walk away with a profound insight into the human condition and the steps necessary to bring restoration with God. As for point '(2)', not all passages are equally clear, and not all biblical teachings are so readily available without the benefit of often considerable contextual learning. Whilst such learning is not generally beyond anyone, neither is it generally undertaken by everyone  Consequently there remains a need for informed, theologically sophisticated and educated teachers within the Body of Christ 
God bless,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Sea Urchin
|
2#
|
Rank:Poster Venti III
Score:9010
Posts:431
Registered:15/02/2007
|
(Date Posted:18/09/2007 03:11:58)
Reply to : Didaktikon
In summary (this is intended as a brief overview of the subject) when considering point '(1)', above: the average person can read the Bible for him or herself, and walk away with a profound insight into the human condition and the steps necessary to bring restoration with God. As for point '(2)', not all passages are equally clear, and not all biblical teachings are so readily available without the benefit of often considerable contextual learning. Whilst such learning is not generally beyond anyone, neither is it generally undertaken by everyone Consequently there remains a need for informed, theologically sophisticated and educated teachers within the Body of Christ
Morning Ian
Thanks for sharing the above, we are blessed to have you around to explain things so clearly.
I love the fact that now that I AM reading and studying the Bible for myself (instead of relying on the good ol' RF oversight) I am finding that there is an amazing depth in scripture. I always pray first that the Holy Spirit will help me to understand what I read and that He takes me deeper into the Word. I still read from my old KJV occasionally but mostly use the NLT and new KJV.
I feel I have so much lost time to make up for and I truly appreciate having you around as well as others that have made the study of scripture such a major part of their lives.
Urch
--------------------------------------------------------------
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
3#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31540
Posts:1514
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:18/09/2007 03:44:05)
Reply to : Sea Urchin
'morning, Urch.
Thanks, and you're certainly welcome
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
thisgoodriddle
|
4#
|
Registered:01/07/2009
|
Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:02/07/2009 07:18:59)
Reply to Didaktikon (18/09/2007 02:27:34)
Good morning, all.I offer this small post in response to a question emailed to me by a forum member yesterday, "why is the Bible so hard to understand?"First, let me clearly state that this is aperfectly fairandvalidquestion to ask. Especially in light of the Protestant claim that Scripture is 'perspicuous' ('clear', or 'easily understood')!To begin with, I will also state that I fully support the Reformation doctrine of the 'perspicuity of Scripture'. I can do so recognising two salient points: (1) the doctrine itself pertains to the notion that the Bible is completely clear"...with respect to those matters pertaining to the grasping of life, eternal...", and (2) that the standard of general education of the Reformers themselves, and of those within the scholastic tradition they stood in line too, is quite removed from most Christians of today (who are, bye-and-large, largely unsophisticated with respect to the fields of knowledge that combine to form biblical and theological literacy). These two main points fairly well inform my response to the question posed above.I think it best to highlight a significant feature: Revivalists donotstand in the historic stream of Christian learning. Completely the opposite is the case, they standwell outside of it!In other words, Revivalists are unable to avail themselves of 2,000 years of consistent and persistent study on Scripture, its effects, its meanings and the outcomes that result. Revivalists simplistically, and naively, assume that they can approach Scripture with their 20th and 21st century western views, and grasp its multiplied meanings aright!The fact of the 'multiplied meanings' leads to the next point. Scripture, being God's timeless Word addressed to humanity via two time-bound human cultures,isn't'flat' or 'one-dimensional'. One must appreciate this fact if one is to make sense of much of it, so as to rightly discern God's Word for us, today. 'Sense' must develop into 'significance' (and it must be acknowledged that not all passages within Holy Writ speak with the same degree of authority, even when addressing the same subject), and the only way that this can take place is to properly appreciate the range of contexts which must be grappled with and understood so as to enable such (geographical, historical, cultural, linguistic, religious, social, economic, etc).In summary (this is intended as a brief overview of the subject) when considering point '(1)', above: the average person can read the Bible for him or herself, and walk away with aprofound insightinto the human condition and the steps necessary to bring restoration with God. As for point '(2)', notallpassages are equally clear, and notallbiblical teachings are so readily available without the benefit of often considerable contextual learning. Whilst such learning is not generally beyond anyone, neither is it generally undertaken by everyoneConsequently there remains a need for informed, theologically sophisticated and educated teachers within the Body of ChristGod bless,Ian One reason, which I did not see mentioned above, is that the Bible is errant. One portion of the evidence for this claim is Matthew 13:33 which reads, "Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." A second portion is Luke 13:21 which reads, "It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." If, for the benefit of discussion, we provisionally say that one meaning of the word 'leaven' is 'sin', then we could substitute the word 'sin' for the word 'leaven'. If we were to make that substitution in Luke 13:21, then it would read, "It is like 'sin', which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was 'sinned'." At first glance, such a substitution makes no sense; but on further contemplation, we realize that we could examine the descriptions of 'sin' in order to see if one of them could be hidden in the Bible, if we provisionally say that the Bible is 'meal' because it comes from 'seed'. If we first examine the description of sin which reads, "Thou shalt not kill", then we quickly realize that this description of a sin cannot be the one which was committed and then hidden in the Bible. That is to say, there is no way to hide a dead body in a Bible. To cut to the chase, if we examine the description of each sin in turn, we will have to reject each one until we examine the description which reads, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." This is a sin which can in fact be committed and then hidden in the Bible. For instance, if a person were to falsely testify that God said this or Peter did that, then the person could 'hide' that sin in the Bible by the simple expedient of writting it in the manuscript. Once written in the manuscript, then it becomes undetectable, to the casual reader. So the Bible becomes difficult to understand because it contains some words which are a false witness in addition to the words which proceeded out of the mouth of God. In contrast to the casual reader, the warning in Luke 13:21 serves to warn the alert reader that the Bible contains words which are a false witness, in addition to the words which proceeded out of the mouth of God. To clearly see this, let us substitute the phrase 'false witness' for the word 'leaven' (or the word 'sin') in Luke 13:21. It would then read, "It is like 'false witness', which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was 'falsely witnessed'." Such a warning, when encountered by an alert reader, would motivate the reader to search for a way to detect that 'false witness'. Although such a way was eventually found, a discussion of it would be useless until and unless somebody were to realize that the report about the warning is a valid report. Comments, anyone?
|
|
Talmid
|
5#
|
Rank:Regular Member
Score:4190
Posts:205
Registered:21/04/2008
|
Reply to ThisGoodRiddle
(Date Posted:02/07/2009 16:27:03)
Loved your piece ... it was a great example of Lewis Carroll - style nonsense humour. 
Just in case I missed the point and you were serious about your evidence (sic) ... (1) parables are parables, not allegories, even though they may at times have allegorical elements, and in this context "leaven" was clearly explained; (2) if this piece is typical of your "evidence", then those who trust the bible have little to worry about 
(Message edited by Talmid On 02/07/2009 16:28:33)
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
6#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31540
Posts:1514
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To thisgoodriddle
(Date Posted:02/07/2009 16:32:22)
Good morning, Riddle.
One reason, which I did not see mentioned above, is that the Bible is errant.
I suppose that's one way of viewing things. However, I'm not convinced that your understanding of what Jesus meant by his "leaven" statements actually hits the mark (to begin with, parables are parabolic, not allegorical). It seems to be that you're inferring something akin to intentional deception, and furthermore, that such forms the "hermeneutical key" to understanding Scripture aright! I'd like to suggest to you that this is an "interpretation" which parts company with reality. But further, that such an approach to "finding" supposedly "hidden meanings" in the Bible is what led to "clangers" including: Bible Numerics, British Israel, Pyramidology and Lloyd Longfield's claim that Christ would return in September 2001!
Blessings,
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 02/07/2009 17:06:19)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Galien
|
7#
|
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8650
Posts:425
Registered:17/01/2005
|
RE:Why is the Bible so hard to understand?
(Date Posted:02/07/2009 18:34:19)
Reply to Ian
(2) not all passages are equally clear, and not all biblical teachings are so readily available without the benefit of often considerable contextual learning. Whilst such learning is not generally beyond anyone, neither is it generally undertaken by everyone. Consequently there remains a need for informed, theologically sophisticated and educated teachers within the Body of Christ
Rubbish. It is exactly that attitude that has caused there to be so many disenfranchised christians. "Sophisticated"? God doesn't care about sophisiticated. Where do you people get these ideas from? It is just another structural idea brought in from the prevailing culture.
Galien.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. So there.
|
dogmafree
|
8#
|
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8300
Posts:355
Registered:21/02/2006
|
RE:Why is the Bible so hard to understand?
(Date Posted:02/07/2009 19:35:53)
I find this all a bit hard to fathom....
call me simple if you wish (Ian, I'm sure you'll be happy to)
What this all suggests is that God the creator had INTENTIONAL and PURPOSEFUL interventions in our human history to give us a road map to please him and find him (return to him, if you will). So he made all sorts of stuff happen, guys wrote books etc, these were all collated and somehow presented to us as THE WAY. The ultimate communication of his will for us. That is a picture of a very ACTIVE god.
In our RECENT history, (say the last 120 years or so, where history has been documented and has had more substance than just a passed down story telling) we see absolutely NO EVIDENCE of such an active god. Really we could be excused for thinking he has gone on an extended holiday and left us to it.
So if he WAS so intentional way back then, to 'show us the way' why has this changed????
We all can appreciate that there are many contextual changes (as Ian points out) from the time of Jesus, the prophets and all that, which makes some stuff a bit difficult to grasp clearly unless we get really seriously into theology and spend half our life studying. So if god knows this, why not make it more plain. If god is who he is presented as being, its not as if he is unable to! It remains then that he is unwilling!
Is he playing games with us? Does he 'get off' by watching so much of humanity flounder around? Seriously!.... would we take our young children out into the middle of the desert, drop them off there with a map of Africa from 1880 and expect them to find their way home to Australia?
I for one find there are MANY, many, many more useful, pertinent and helpful ways of understanding 'the divine' in 2009 than reading the bible. Yes, it has many wonderful passages that are worth reading. But I feel that many other teachings present ways to God/Christ that are a whole lot less CRYPTIC than what the bible is. And these are not wrapped in layers and layers of red herrings to wade through. So why make things so hard?
Dog.
(Message edited by dogmafree On 02/07/2009 19:39:56)
--------------------------------------------------------------
"for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
|
|
Didaktikon
|
9#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31540
Posts:1514
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To dogmafree
(Date Posted:02/07/2009 19:59:49)
Good morning, Dog.
In our RECENT history, (say the last 120 years or so, where history has been documented and has had more substance than just a passed down story telling) we see absolutely NO EVIDENCE of such an active god. Really we could be excused for thinking he has gone on an extended holiday and left us to it. So if he WAS so intentional way back then, to 'show us the way' why has this changed????
Well, I suppose that nothing of any substance has changed. God revealed himself, initially, to a specific man (Abraham), then through him to a specific people group (the Jews). They were entrusted with the task of making him known more widely. Later still, according to the unknown author of Hebrews, God revealed himself definitively in another specific man (his son, Jesus Christ). On Jesus' ascension, he then entrusted this witness to another specific people group, his followers. Consequently, it remains the task/mission of the Christian Church of making him known more widely. But the historical pattern of God's self-revelation, so far as I can tell, hasn't changed one iota!
We all can appreciate that there are many contextual changes (as Ian points out) from the time of Jesus, the prophets and all that, which makes some stuff a bit difficult to grasp clearly unless we get really seriously into theology and spend half our life studying. So if god knows this, why not make it more plain. If god is who he is presented as being, its not as if he is unable to! It remains then that he is unwilling!
I don't know how matters could really be any more plain. The birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus as Christ seems plain enough to me, and it's all there written down for you in simple English. What would you prefer instead? Banging shutters? Voices from heaven? Burning bushes? Your own personal theophany every now and then? If you do, well, such a grasping at supposed evidences sounds very "Revival-ish" to me. Furthermore, I think you've overstated matters with respect to the requirement for a little education so as to make sense of contextual issues. Half of one's life seems a tad excessive, especially when one can purchase a good mix of printed resources that largely achieves this end for a couple of hundred bucks! Might I suggest, then, that laziness more than incapacity/inability is likely the root problem?
Is he playing games with us? Does he 'get off' by watching so much of humanity flounder around? Seriously!.... would we take our young children out into the middle of the desert, drop them off there with a map of Africa from 1880 and expect them to find their way home to Australia?
I think you'll find it's a prevalent human failing to rebel against having to conform one's will to the requirements of another, never mind to God's will. If we "flounder", then I'd suggest that it's largely a self-induced "floundering", and isn't the result of a dearth of readily available and voluminous information to help us on the way.
I for one find there are MANY, many, many more useful, pertinent and helpful ways of understanding 'the divine' in 2009 than reading the bible.
No doubt. But I didn't think we were discussing the largely undefined "Divine". I thought we were discussing God? And if we are, then what sort of a person would disregard the primary sources for something far less tangible and authoritative? Not someone who places a premium in history, that's for certain.
Yes, it has many wonderful passages that are worth reading. But I feel that many other teachings present ways to God/Christ that are a whole lot less CRYPTIC than what the bible is.
I'm sure you do, but I wonder just how many of them do so with "the divine" authority of Scripture? In other words, with the imprimatur of God? Not too many, I'd be thinking.
And these are not wrapped in layers and layers of red herrings to wade through. So why make things so hard?
I can't answer that, as I'm not you I have no idea why you make things so hard for yourself. But it seems to me that if you're half as convinced about the alternatives that you spruik constantly of, then why do you continue to come to this forum, and why do you continue to ply me with questions? Your approach seems mighty inconsistent to your professed beliefs.
Blessings,
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 03/07/2009 07:50:45)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
thisgoodriddle
|
10#
|
Registered:01/07/2009
|
Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:03/07/2009 04:15:49)
Reply to Didaktikon (02/07/2009 16:32:22)
Good morning, Riddle.
One reason, which I did not see mentioned above, is that the Bible is errant.
I suppose that's one way of viewing things. However, I'm not convinced that your understanding of what Jesus meant by his "leaven" statements actually hits the mark (to begin with, parables are parabolic, not allegorical). It seems to be that you're inferring something akin to intentional deception, and furthermore, that such forms the "hermeneutical key" to understanding Scripture aright! I'd like to suggest to you that this is an "interpretation" which parts company with reality. But further, that such an approach to "finding" supposedly "hidden meanings" in the Bible is what led to "clangers" including: Bible Numerics, British Israel, Pyramidology and Lloyd Longfield's claim that Christ would return in September 2001!
Blessings,
Ian
Thank you for your informative replies. 'Bye.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
11#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31540
Posts:1514
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To thisgoodriddle
(Date Posted:03/07/2009 07:29:52)
Riddle,
You're most welcome.
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Guest
|
|
|
Reply To Galien
(Date Posted:04/07/2009 22:21:10)
Reply to Galien (02/07/2009 18:34:19)
Reply to Ian
(2) not all passages are equally clear, and not all biblical teachings are so readily available without the benefit of often considerable contextual learning. Whilst such learning is not generally beyond anyone, neither is it generally undertaken by everyone. Consequently there remains a need for informed, theologically sophisticated and educated teachers within the Body of Christ
Rubbish. It is exactly that attitude that has caused there to be so many disenfranchised christians. "Sophisticated"? God doesn't care about sophisiticated. Where do you people get these ideas from? It is just another structural idea brought in from the prevailing culture.
Galien.
Hi there Galien,
Rubbish? Well you are entitled to your opinion.
I'll just put before you some passages in Ephesians 4 taken from the Amplified Version (for convenience) where Paul wrote in terms of individual ministry within the Holy Spirit empowered Church to teach and equip every believer to benefit the whole body in his/her own special way.
Ephesians 4 : 11-12
"And His gifts were [varied; He Himself appointed and gave men to us] some to be apostles (special messengers), some prophets (inspired preachers and expounders), some evangelists (preachers of the Gospel, traveling missionaries), some pastors (shepherds of His flock) and teachers. His intention was the perfecting and the full equipping of the saints (His consecrated people), [that THEY should do] the work of ministering toward building up Christ's body (the church) etc etc etc.
So you see, I have to say "rubbish" to your reply.
Ian has said that "whilst such learning is not generally beyond anyone, neither is it generally undertaken by everyone." I consider some are called to expand on the measure of fulness that is given in God's council to every believer, although not perfected in any of us until we arrive in heaven.
If there were not such a diversity of gifts, which are not used in isolation, the whole body (Paul's analogy of human body) would not function at all.
All these special appointments cannot be lumped together under the title of Pastor as in the case of Revival, although I think Lloyd gave it a good go adding also correction, reproof, executing of discipline (who is put out and who isn't) and of course the financial management. It's possible/probably this error of the founder of RCI came about by this man's ignorance and lack of formal teaching and proper training. The blind leading the blind.
I think an appreciation of those who, to quote a favourite PM saying, have done the hard yards is warranted.
God bless you in every good thing.
Epi
|
|
Episkopeo
|
13#
|
Rank:Regular Rookier
Score:5700
Posts:267
Registered:30/08/2007
|
Re:Why is the Bible so hard to understand?
(Date Posted:04/07/2009 22:26:06)
Sorry, last post was from Episkopeo
|
|
Galien
|
14#
|
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8650
Posts:425
Registered:17/01/2005
|
Re:Why is the Bible so hard to understand?
(Date Posted:04/07/2009 23:54:16)
REPLY TO EPI
'll just put before you some passages in Ephesians 4 taken from the Amplified Version (for convenience) where Paul wrote in terms of individual ministry within the Holy Spirit empowered Church to teach and equip every believer to benefit the whole body in his/her own special way. Ephesians 4 : 11-12 "And His gifts were [varied; He Himself appointed and gave men to us] some to be apostles (special messengers), some prophets (inspired preachers and expounders), some evangelists (preachers of the Gospel, traveling missionaries), some pastors (shepherds of His flock) and teachers. His intention was the perfecting and the full equipping of the saints (His consecrated people), [that THEY should do] the work of ministering toward building up Christ's body (the church) etc etc etc. So you see, I have to say "rubbish" to your reply. That's okay Epi. You have not seen the things I have, I have not seen the things you have. All I have seen is people who get their jollies from using the above scripture to take UPON THEMSELVES power over others. Its all very well to say god has given me this gift or that, but if you use it to abuse and manipulate others you will be in pretty serious trouble with God in the final analysis.But for the abused its not the final analysis they have to live with every day. Pretty well everywhere I go I see people who push their way to the top of whatever organisation they happen to be part of. Doesn't matter what it is, there are some people in this world who are not happy unless they are the boss. They know better, and if they can't give some wordly explanation of why they have the right to do that, they will use the bible, no worries. These personality disordered people turn up everywhere. What makes you think the church isn't full of them now?I look carefully at a person who thinks they can stand in front of me and tell me how to live. And if they do, they would want to have a pretty good handle on being a decent human being before they even try. If I intuit, and I'm pretty good at that, that they haven't a clue, I am not prepared to to listen to a word they say. If someone wants to tell me how to live, they need to show me first they are better at it than I am. Why would I listen to man like Ian, who says one thing then does another? A man who thinks it is okay to demean and belittle people, and behave in a way I realised was crap in kindergarten? A man who when he has been told he is HURTING people with his manner, not only refuses to stop but then spews vitriol over a person who has already told him they are hurting? Even idiots know that kind of behaviour will get you punched in the head pretty quickly. Its okay for me, I can defend myself but there are people who have been shredded by revival who can't. That poor bloke Luke has been eviscerated by Ian (nice job ian, jesus would be proud) to what end? If there were not such a diversity of gifts, which are not used in isolation, the whole body (Paul's analogy of human body) would not function at all. You think the body functions? Then do me a favour and ask 10 people who are not part of the church how they feel about that. People outside the church think it is a joke and we have given them every reason to think so. Look at the statistics Epi, church involvement has been declining for decades. The orthodox church has very little to offer in our culture. I know so many people who still love God but refuse to attend church because they are over being pushed around. They have been treated so badly they are now anti-institutional.
All these special appointments cannot be lumped together under the title of Pastor as in the case of Revival, although I think Lloyd gave it a good go adding also correction, reproof, executing of discipline (who is put out and who isn't) and of course the financial management. It's possible/probably this error of the founder of RCI came about by this man's ignorance and lack of formal teaching and proper training. I would agree with this, however, as mentioned above I don't think it is doing the job. I think an appreciation of those who, to quote a favourite PM saying, have done the hard yards is warranted. EVERYONE does the hard yards, whether its study or life. I would not be more inclined to listen to a person just because they have done tertiary study. In fact those I go to in need would be christians of long term standing who I know will not give me a mouthful of theological mumbo jumbo and silly platitudes, but will care about who I am and where I am.God bless you also Epi.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. So there.
|
|
|
