Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Conversion, Spiritual Epiphanies and Mystical Experiences


webmdave

Recommended Posts

Japeth,

 

No one has seen the Bible as it was originally written, not even the earliest Christians. By the time the last books of the Bible were being written, the originals were already worn out and copied. There were no first hand copies. They were copies of copies of copies and on and on. No one can just believe the originals because no one has any idea what the originals said, and there is no way of knowing what they said.

 

 

My piont exactly. I believe that the God who made everything was able to preserve his word and that we have the actual words of God even though they are translated copies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: All Regularly Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.
  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Japeth

    62

  • Antlerman

    25

  • NotBlinded

    17

  • Shawn

    10

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Japeth,

 

No one has seen the Bible as it was originally written, not even the earliest Christians. By the time the last books of the Bible were being written, the originals were already worn out and copied. There were no first hand copies. They were copies of copies of copies and on and on. No one can just believe the originals because no one has any idea what the originals said, and there is no way of knowing what they said.

 

 

My piont exactly. I believe that the God who made everything was able to preserve his word and that we have the actual words of God even though they are translated copies.

 

Than why is the Bible so similar to other, older Pagan stories?

 

Why is it that the miracles that Jesus did were the same ones preformed by other God's centuries before Jesus did them?

 

Wouldn't God have come up something new and unique, instead of borrowing from other religions for his Word?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japeth,

 

No one has seen the Bible as it was originally written, not even the earliest Christians. By the time the last books of the Bible were being written, the originals were already worn out and copied. There were no first hand copies. They were copies of copies of copies and on and on. No one can just believe the originals because no one has any idea what the originals said, and there is no way of knowing what they said.

 

 

My piont exactly. I believe that the God who made everything was able to preserve his word and that we have the actual words of God even though they are translated copies.

I'll get to my response to your response to me later on. But for now....

 

If these are the actual words of God, the actual translated words of God in the KJV.... then God needs to go back to school. Behold:

 

"So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden
Cherubims
, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." Ge. 3:24 KJV

The "im" ending in Hebrew is the plural signification. For God here to translate the Hebrew "Cherubims" is like you saying, "I saw several deers", or "I spied many sheeps", or "I milked several cowses". Cherub is singular. Cherubim is plural. "One Cherub, two Cherubim, three Cherubim," etc. Cherubims with the "s" is a mistranslation by the KJV translators. ALL modern translations correct this error. I should think we be able to trust that God would know how to use language properly, shouldn't we?

 

Now the only thing you can say at this point is one of the following:

 

1. God did not inspire the translators to have a perfect translation, thus NOT preserving his "perfect" word

2. God has the authority to change the rules of language and it is perfectly acceptable to say things like sheeps, deers, cowses, horseses, and cherubims

3. God made a translation error, which would make God imperfect

4. God doesn't know the proper use of language, which means he is fallible like humans

5. Men wrote and translated the Bible, and no god had anything to do with it.

 

I choose option 5. Which do you?

 

All it takes is one error to make the whole tower of "infalliblity" crumble. There you go, that's one. Care to prove it isn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IE. Judas talked with Jesus saw his mircles and was considered by the other apostles a Brother in the Lord and not one of them had any idea that he was a devil. So its no great thing to say your a Christian.

 

Judas never had faith but he played the part well enough so that not one of the other apostles knew he was a devil except Jesus. They passed the cup and each apostle said "Is it I Lord"? Not knowing that it was Judas.

 

So playing the part and actually giving you life to Christ are two totally different things

So, you are saying that if Paul wasn't a devil that Jesus would have not been crucified? That kind of defeats the purpose of him being put here to die for us doesn't it? Or, are you saying that God told this "devil" to turn Jesus in? If so, why is he the "devil" for doing God's will?

 

Universalism is not bible based, if its not a bible based faith then its a false faith according to the Bible.

CircularLogicLogo.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll get to my response to your response to me later on. But for now....

 

If these are the actual words of God, the actual translated words of God in the KJV.... then God needs to go back to school. Behold:

 

"So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden
Cherubims
, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." Ge. 3:24 KJV

The "im" ending in Hebrew is the plural signification. For God here to translate the Hebrew "Cherubims" is like you saying, "I saw several deers", or "I spied many sheeps", or "I milked several cowses". Cherub is singular. Cherubim is plural. "One Cherub, two Cherubim, three Cherubim," etc. Cherubims with the "s" is a mistranslation by the KJV translators. ALL modern translations correct this error. I should think we be able to trust that God would know how to use language properly, shouldn't we?

 

Is that the best you can come up with?

 

 

Now the only thing you can say at this point is one of the following:

 

1. God did not inspire the translators to have a perfect translation, thus NOT preserving his "perfect" word

2. God has the authority to change the rules of language and it is perfectly acceptable to say things like sheeps, deers, cowses, horseses, and cherubims

3. God made a translation error, which would make God imperfect

4. God doesn't know the proper use of language, which means he is fallible like humans

5. Men wrote and translated the Bible, and no god had anything to do with it.

 

I choose option 5. Which do you?

 

All it takes is one error to make the whole tower of "infalliblity" crumble. There you go, that's one. Care to prove it isn't?

 

Paul tells Timothy that he has known the holy scriptures ever since he was a child. Yet, we must recognize that all Timothy had were copies and translations of the original Hebrew texts. Young Timothy did not have access to the original autographs of any of the Old Testament writers. In the preservation of God, Paul refers to these copies as holy scriptures. It would be unbiblical of us to think less of the word of God today.

 

There are more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other ancient writing. To date, we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, and over 9,000 manuscripts of ancient translations of the New Testament

 

Gods word is inspired not the spelling of words,

 

I dont choose any, I believe that Gods words a pure and thouroughly furnished

 

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IE. Judas talked with Jesus saw his mircles and was considered by the other apostles a Brother in the Lord and not one of them had any idea that he was a devil. So its no great thing to say your a Christian.

 

Judas never had faith but he played the part well enough so that not one of the other apostles knew he was a devil except Jesus. They passed the cup and each apostle said "Is it I Lord"? Not knowing that it was Judas. So playing the part and actually giving your life to Christ are two totally different things.

 

 

 

 

 

So, you are saying that if Paul wasn't a devil that Jesus would have not been crucified? That kind of defeats the purpose of him being put here to die for us doesn't it? Or, are you saying that God told this "devil" to turn Jesus in? If so, why is he the "devil" for doing God's will?

 

I assuming you ment to say Judas. Since scripture can't be broken and prophecy written long before Jesus shows up in the flesh, it had to happen this way.

 

Psa 41:9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me

 

God knew it would happen this way that why he said so long before the coming of Christ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japeth,

 

No one has seen the Bible as it was originally written, not even the earliest Christians. By the time the last books of the Bible were being written, the originals were already worn out and copied. There were no first hand copies. They were copies of copies of copies and on and on. No one can just believe the originals because no one has any idea what the originals said, and there is no way of knowing what they said.

 

 

My piont exactly. I believe that the God who made everything was able to preserve his word and that we have the actual words of God even though they are translated copies.
Than why is the Bible so similar to other, older Pagan stories?

 

 

The devil is the master at deciet for something to appear authentic it has to be as close to the original.

 

 

 

Why is it that the miracles that Jesus did were the same ones preformed by other God's centuries before Jesus did them?
Give me example?

 

Exodus the devil matched mose tit for tat until he got to creation

 

So it no great thing if satan ministers are ministers of rightiousness

 

 

 

 

Wouldn't God have come up something new and unique, instead of borrowing from other religions for his Word?

 

Other religions have all taken from the Bible and given there own spin, Job is the oldest book known to mankind there is not text that predate the book of Job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can do is pleed with you to accept God at his word in the pages of the Holy Bible, if Fundy offend then dont join a church, but aleast put your faith in Jesus he is the only Promise Keeper.

 

 

Keep praying for us to accept Jesus, I'm sure if you pray long enough SOMETHING will happen, either that or nothing, I'm sure its one of the two. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you are saying that if Paul wasn't a devil that Jesus would have not been crucified? That kind of defeats the purpose of him being put here to die for us doesn't it? Or, are you saying that God told this "devil" to turn Jesus in? If so, why is he the "devil" for doing God's will?

 

I assuming you ment to say Judas. Since scripture can't be broken and prophecy written long before Jesus shows up in the flesh, it had to happen this way.

 

Psa 41:9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me

 

God knew it would happen this way that why he said so long before the coming of Christ

Yes, sorry...I meant Judas. But, you didn't answer why you call him a devil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other religions have all taken from the Bible and given there own spin, Job is the oldest book known to mankind there is not text that predate the book of Job.

 

 

Are you really this ignorant? what about the Hindu Vedas? they date from as early as 1500 B.C.E. and predate even the traditional dates of the OT scriptures. and JOB isn't even considered the oldest book in the OT as tradition states that it was written by Solomon.

 

Really, where are you pulling this stuff from? because it looks like you are just making this stuff up on e the spot. it is clear that your knowledge of history is either totally lacking, or you are just reading some books written by some very ignorant people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The devil is the master at deciet for something to appear authentic it has to be as close to the original.

What? Does that mean that the bible, which appears authentic, is the work of the devil since it came at a later date than the original?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other religions have all taken from the Bible and given there own spin, Job is the oldest book known to mankind there is not text that predate the book of Job.

Surely you don't mean that. The epic of Gilgamesh is the oldest written text that is known at this time. Check it out and compare the flood story to that of Genesis.

 

The Epic of Gilgamesh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other religions have all taken from the Bible and given there own spin, Job is the oldest book known to mankind there is not text that predate the book of Job.

Surely you don't mean that. The epic of Gilgamesh is the oldest written text that is known at this time. Check it out and compare the flood story to that of Genesis.

 

The Epic of Gilgamesh

 

 

the book of Genesis was written AFTER exodus.

 

Exd 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

 

 

Exd 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

 

This was not God showing moses his Hiny, The heaven are the glory of God

 

Psa 19:1 ¶ The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

 

God was showing Moses his glory, whats Gods glory? The HEAVENS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The devil is the master at deciet for something to appear authentic it has to be as close to the original.

What? Does that mean that the bible, which appears authentic, is the work of the devil since it came at a later date than the original?

 

Please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you are saying that if Paul wasn't a devil that Jesus would have not been crucified? That kind of defeats the purpose of him being put here to die for us doesn't it? Or, are you saying that God told this "devil" to turn Jesus in? If so, why is he the "devil" for doing God's will?

 

I assuming you ment to say Judas. Since scripture can't be broken and prophecy written long before Jesus shows up in the flesh, it had to happen this way.

 

Psa 41:9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me

 

God knew it would happen this way that why he said so long before the coming of Christ

Yes, sorry...I meant Judas. But, you didn't answer why you call him a devil?

 

Jesus calls him a devil In

 

Jhn 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

 

 

Jhn 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot [the son] of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other ancient writing.

 

Define "ancient". And provide proof for this statement.

 

Edit:

 

You know what? Never fucking mind. I just read the rest of this thread. You pull "history" either from your own ass, or from someone else's. You make statements of "fact" without bothering to fact-check. Your understanding is limited and you are perfectly happy to uphold those limits and attempt to inflict them on others.

 

You aren't here to learn. And you're racist. Are you sexist too? Don't bother answering. I really don't give a shit about the muck in your head.

 

You just keep staying rooted in place while the rest of the world moves forward.

 

Buh-Bye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other religions have all taken from the Bible and given there own spin, Job is the oldest book known to mankind there is not text that predate the book of Job.

Surely you don't mean that. The epic of Gilgamesh is the oldest written text that is known at this time. Check it out and compare the flood story to that of Genesis.

 

The Epic of Gilgamesh

 

 

the book of Genesis was written AFTER exodus.

 

Exd 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

 

 

Exd 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

 

This was not God showing moses his Hiny, The heaven are the glory of God

 

Psa 19:1 ¶ The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

 

God was showing Moses his glory, whats Gods glory? The HEAVENS

 

The hell does this have to do with what he just said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hell does this have to do with what he just said?

I was wondering that myself!

 

Japeth, I know it's hard for you to think outside of that little box you have confined yourself to, but can you for once use a little common sense and ask why would Judas be seen as a devil if it was God's will that Jesus be betrayed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The devil is the master at deciet for something to appear authentic it has to be as close to the original.

What? Does that mean that the bible, which appears authentic, is the work of the devil since it came at a later date than the original?

 

Please

Please what? The stories that are in the bible were adopted by Christians. Just as the candy cane was (now that one's a hoot!)

 

The Pagan's could have just as easily stated that the devil used Christianity to distort the "True Faith" of Paganism.

 

MITHRAISM -- A Historical Introduction:

 

"For over three hundred years the rulers of the Roman Empire worshipped the god Mithras. Known throughout Europe and Asia by the names Mithra, Mitra, Meitros, Mihr, Mehr, and Meher, the veneration of this god began around 3000 BCE in Persia, which was moved west and became imbedded with Babylonian doctrines. There is mention of Mithra or Mitra (et al) before 2800, but only as a minor diety and without much information. It appears to be after 2800 BCE when Mithra is transformed and starts to play a major role among the gods. The faith spread east through India to China, and reached west throughout the entire length of the Roman frontier; from Scotland to the Sahara Desert, and from Spain to the Black Sea. Sites of Mithraic worship have been found in Britain, Italy, Romania, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, Persia, Armenia, Syria, Israel, and North Africa. In Rome, more than a hundred inscriptions dedicated to Mithra have been found, in addition to 75 sculpture fragments, and a series of Mithraic temples situated in all parts of the city. One of the largest Mithraic temples built in Italy now lies under the present site of the Church of St. Clemente, near the Colosseum in Rome. The widespread popularity and appeal of Mithraism as the final and most refined form of pre-Christian paganism was discussed by the Greek historian Herodotus, the Greek biographer Plutarch, the neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry, the Gnostic heretic Origen, and St. Jerome the church Father. Mithraism was quite often noted by many historians for its many astonishing similarities to Christianity. The faithful referred to Mithra as "the Light of the World", symbol of truth, justice, and loyalty. He was mediator between heaven and earth and was a member of a Holy Trinity. According to Persian mythology, Mithras was born of a virgin given the title 'Mother of God'. The god remained celibate throughout his life, and valued self-control, renunciation and resistance to sensuality among his worshippers. Mithras represented a system of ethics in which brotherhood was encouraged in order to unify against the forces of evil. The worshippers of Mithras held strong beliefs in a celestial heaven and an infernal hell. They believed that the benevolent powers of the god would sympathize with their suffering and grant them the final justice of immortality and eternal salvation in the world to come. They looked forward to a final day of Judgment in which the dead would resurrect, and to a final conflict that would destroy the existing order of all things to bring about the triumph of light over darkness.

 

Purification through a ritualistic baptism was required of the faithful, who also took part in a ceremony in which they drank wine and ate bread to symbolize the body and blood of the god. Sundays were held sacred, and the birth of the god was celebrated annually on December the 25th. After the earthly mission of this god had been accomplished, he took part in a Last Supper with his companions before ascending to heaven, to forever protect the faithful from above.

 

However, it would be a vast oversimplification to suggest that Mithraism was the single forerunner of early Christianity. Aside from Christ and Mithras, there were plenty of other deities (such as Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Balder, Attis, and Dionysus) said to have died and resurrected. Many classical heroic figures, such as Hercules, Perseus, and Theseus, were said to have been born through the union of a virgin mother and divine father. Virtually every pagan religious practice and festivity that couldn't be suppressed or driven underground was eventually incorporated into the rites of Christianity as it spread across Europe and throughout the world."

 

Bold is mine for you attention.

 

And this is what you want to do when you don't want to break any laws: Mithraism & Christianity

 

Oh...and this is a good one here:

 

"Augustine, Firmicus, Justin, Tertullian, and others, having perceived the exact resemblance between the religion of Christ and the religion of Mithra, did, with an impertinence only to be equalled by its outrageous absurdity, insist that the devil, jealous and malignant, induced the Persians to establish a religion the exact image of Christianity that was to be--for these worthy saints and sinners of the church could not deny that the worship of Mithra preceded that of Christ--so that, to get out of the ditch, they summoned the devil to their aid, and with the most astonishing assurance, thus accounted for the striking similarity between the Persian and the Christian religion, the worship of Mithra and the worship of Christ; a mode of getting rid of a difficulty that is at once so stupid and absurd, that it would be almost equally stupid and absurd seriously to refute it.

 

From here: Mithra: The Pagan Christ Part 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll get to my response to your response to me later on. But for now....

 

If these are the actual words of God, the actual translated words of God in the KJV.... then God needs to go back to school. Behold:

 

"So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden
Cherubims
, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." Ge. 3:24 KJV

The "im" ending in Hebrew is the plural signification. For God here to translate the Hebrew "Cherubims" is like you saying, "I saw several deers", or "I spied many sheeps", or "I milked several cowses". Cherub is singular. Cherubim is plural. "One Cherub, two Cherubim, three Cherubim," etc. Cherubims with the "s" is a mistranslation by the KJV translators. ALL modern translations correct this error. I should think we be able to trust that God would know how to use language properly, shouldn't we?

 

Is that the best you can come up with?

Do I need to come up with more? One is all it takes. Here's your words:

 

My piont exactly. I believe that the God who made everything was able to preserve his word and that we have the actual words of God even though they are translated copies.

If they are the "actual words of God" and the KJV is an "inspired" translation and infallible, that means there will be exactly zero errors in it. All I need is one example of imperfection. I gave one to you. There's tons more, but there's no point in exposing more. One mistake kills the claim of inspired translation.

 

Care to explain how it's in there if this is supposed to be a perfect translation? I'd like an explaination.

 

Paul tells Timothy that he has known the holy scriptures ever since he was a child. Yet, we must recognize that all Timothy had were copies and translations of the original Hebrew texts. Young Timothy did not have access to the original autographs of any of the Old Testament writers. In the preservation of God, Paul refers to these copies as holy scriptures. It would be unbiblical of us to think less of the word of God today.

 

There are more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other ancient writing. To date, we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, and over 9,000 manuscripts of ancient translations of the New Testament

 

Gods word is inspired not the spelling of words,

So you are now saying the KJV is NOT an inspired translation? That it contains errors? I'm only pointing out spelling at this point, since you don't need anything more than one error to negate the claim of inspired translation.

 

So then if you accept that there are translation errors, then do you accept that other translations are valid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I gather, Japeth believes that the KJV is the originals. It's not inspired by God, but just as the originals were guilded by the very hands of God himself, so were the men who translated the KJV. It's not a translation to him. The KJV are the original Word's of God, all others are counterfeit.

 

Japeth,

 

You do know that all the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament are very, very different from each other. They don't even say the same things. There are more differences between the manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

 

You also may not be aware that many of them are forgeries. Forgeries were very common back then. Writing a letter and pretending to be someone else, in order to get your ideas across was very common. There are many letters that were not written by Paul, that say they are. Some of these letters, that are forgeries and were not written by Paul, are even in the King James Version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I gather, Japeth believes that the KJV is the originals. It's not inspired by God, but just as the originals were guilded by the very hands of God himself, so were the men who translated the KJV. It's not a translation to him. The KJV are the original Word's of God, all others are counterfeit.

 

Japeth,

 

You do know that all the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament are very, very different from each other. They don't even say the same things. There are more differences between the manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

 

You also may not be aware that many of them are forgeries. Forgeries were very common back then. Writing a letter and pretending to be someone else, in order to get your ideas across was very common. There are many letters that were not written by Paul, that say they are. Some of these letters, that are forgeries and were not written by Paul, are even in the King James Version.

Yes, I was going to mention also that his comment that there are more manuscripts of the the Bible than any other book in the world is actually a false statement. There are NOT more complete mansuscripts of the Bible. What you have are little bits and pieces, one or two fragments of a couple verses here and a couple of verses there. This is a misrepresentation of the volume of "confirmation" of the texts made poplular by that hack Josh McDowell.

 

Yes, I just need him to confirm or deny that the KJV is an inspired translation. So far the only response he gave was "is that the best you can do?" We shall see....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I gather, Japeth believes that the KJV is the originals. It's not inspired by God, but just as the originals were guilded by the very hands of God himself, so were the men who translated the KJV. It's not a translation to him. The KJV are the original Word's of God, all others are counterfeit.

 

Japeth,

 

You do know that all the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament are very, very different from each other. They don't even say the same things. There are more differences between the manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

 

You also may not be aware that many of them are forgeries. Forgeries were very common back then. Writing a letter and pretending to be someone else, in order to get your ideas across was very common. There are many letters that were not written by Paul, that say they are. Some of these letters, that are forgeries and were not written by Paul, are even in the King James Version.

Yes, I was going to mention also that his comment that there are more manuscripts of the the Bible than any other book in the world is actually a false statement. There are NOT more complete mansuscripts of the Bible. What you have are little bits and pieces, one or two fragments of a couple verses here and a couple of verses there. This is a misrepresentation of the volume of "confirmation" of the texts made poplular by that hack Josh McDowell.

 

Yes, I just need him to confirm or deny that the KJV is an inspired translation. So far the only response he gave was "is that the best you can do?" We shall see....

I'm going to jump in here and comment what I've found in my experience with KJV-onlyists (practically my whole life I've been part of them). It doesn't matter if you point out an error, they will explain it away or just keep repeating that "it has no errors, etc." I see no point in even trying to explain an error to someone who is blind to the evidence in front of them. Actually even though our pastor has admitted that one can find contradictions in the Bible if one is thinking in a "fleshly" rather than a spiritual manner, one pastor I was under as a child said he would give a sum of money (50 or 100 dollars) to anyone who could find an error in the KJV. I remember looking very closely for one, but never took him up on his challenge. What would be the point even if I had found one that I believed was a mistake? He wouldn't admit to it. Peter Ruckman wrote a whole book explaining away hundreds of ambigious or contradictory statements (at least I assume it was hundreds--it's been almost 20 years since I read any of the book), and I read some of it to try and understand how he could explain problems I'd noticed. Now I've pretty much given up trying to show anyone an error.

 

Sparkyone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The devil is the master at deciet for something to appear authentic it has to be as close to the original.

What? Does that mean that the bible, which appears authentic, is the work of the devil since it came at a later date than the original?

 

Please

 

I have a question Japeth. Book of Jude. Tell me about it. This shouldn't take long, being it's one page.

 

 

Shawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Sparkyone,

 

Thanks for your post. We learn a lot from each other, and your post is no exception.

(pssst....We have boring lives and this is our idea of excitement.)

 

Taph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.