greasemonkey Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 go ahead SubZ, prove I'm wrong!!! I have specific proof from a holy book inspired by God Himself that says you are full of crap. It seems like you should hold yourself to the same standards you wish to hold us to and prove it is wrong. Silly Greasemonkey... If it's in the Bible, then it can be twisted to say something it doesn't by old SZ, and if it's not in the Bible and contradicts it, then it's not true. You know that SZ is going to claim it's false, thus proving you wrong... The fact that making such a claim is in no way proof that the claim is correct seems to have gone so far over SZ's head that it's in orbit... of a star in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud. Yeah, I kinda figured that out on my own after the "evolution" comment earlier, but at last I can stalemate his butt by claiming since mine is newer, then it takes prescedence (or something equally silly & illogical that I'll be lucky if I can think of before him...) or making the same claim of falsehood right back ...hell, it's written in a freakin' book revered by millions, what other proof should he need?!?! you gotta admit that it's just kind of fun to put the shoe on the other foot... I love how fundy's will use the same arguements against Islam that they will scream bloody murder about us using on them. Intellectual honesty only applies to the other guy and all... Amanda: I think it would be more fun to have him find a single non-christian scientist who believes historical & archeological evidence proves anything in the bible outside of perhaps a location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Yeah, I kinda figured that out on my own after the "evolution" comment earlier, but at last I can stalemate his butt by claiming since mine is newer, then it takes prescedence (or something equally silly & illogical that I'll be lucky if I can think of before him...) or making the same claim of falsehood right back ...hell, it's written in a freakin' book revered by millions, what other proof should he need?!?! You could tell him that you "presuppose" the Quran to be the Only True Word of God. you gotta admit that it's just kind of fun to put the shoe on the other foot... I love how fundy's will use the same arguements against Islam that they will scream bloody murder about us using on them. Intellectual honesty only applies to the other guy and all... Actually ... he's already had evidence from the Quran thrown at him, that's where all this "presuppose" crap started. See the following - from post #269. Then Jesus cried aloud: "Whoever believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me. - John 12:44-45 Whoever sees me [Muhammad] has seen God. - Islam. Hadith of Bukhari and Muslim _____________________ Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. - John 14:6 I [Krishna] am the goal of the wise man, and I am the way. I am his prosperity. I am his heaven. There is nothing dearer to him than I. - Hinduism. Srimad Bhagavatam 11.12 Now ... here's the problem, Sub. Each of these verses come from literature in which their followers hold to be "the word of God, Allah, etc..." And extremists from each of these religions would fight you to the death insisting that their book was the ONE TRUE WORD OF GOD. Some extremists believe this to the degree that they would highjack planes and run them into buildings to prove the point. Are you getting this, Sub. Why is the Bible any more sacred, or right, than the rest of these books? Don't tell me that Muslims copied Christian sacred texts... because the Hindu religion is the oldest religion in the world and there are those who feel that Hinduism had a bit of influence on early Christianity. So ... Sub.... you have a problem. Prove to us ... hell prove to yourself ... that Christian sacred literature is TRULY right and everything else is wrong. And don't go pulling out a Bible verse to prove it, because for every Bible verse you get to "prove" that the Bible is the only TRUE word of God ... I can go get Hindu, Muslim, whatever verses to "prove" that their literature is the only TRUE word of God. His response was: Here is what I do to solve my little problem that you think I face. You see I take the presupposition that the Bible is the only truth. Than anything that contradicts that on major doctrinal issues isn't the truth. Simple as that! And here we all are several pages later ... with him still not know how ludicrous that statement is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Really, it isn't about proving me wrong. I see the proof all around me, creation itself proves to me there is a God. The Bible has been validated time and time again from outside sources. Correct. It's about you substantiating your presuppositions, which you can't. I see creation as proof that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. "Intelligent Design" is the pounding of a square peg into a round hole. When I look at nature I look at a marvel of natural design - from the bottom up, not the top down as is portrayed in the Bible. And all the evidence from every corner of the globe corroborates this (except of course in the willfully ignorant religious cult that you belong to). So, you point to nature as proof of biblegod. I point to nature as proof of no biblegod. I have endless mountains of credible supportive evidence. You have only your presuppositions and hard core religious zealots pretending to do science to support you. We don't need to prove you wrong. You have to overcome everything to prove yourself right. Presuppositions are not evidence. BTW, the truth is the bible has invalidated time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, again. Yet you still believe. Do expect a pat on the head from God for that, or something?? Is that what motivates your ignorance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 BTW, the truth is the bible has invalidated time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, again. Yet you still believe. Do expect a pat on the head from God for that, or something?? Is that what motivates your ignorance? Name one time when the Bible has been invalidated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasemonkey Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 His response was: Here is what I do to solve my little problem that you think I face. You see I take the presupposition that the Bible is the only truth. Than anything that contradicts that on major doctrinal issues isn't the truth. Simple as that! And here we all are several pages later ... with him still not know how ludicrous that statement is. WOW!!! ...I didn't go back that far in the thread, but it explains a lot of what I was hearing about "presupposition!" (crap, and I thought I was coming up with something unique!) When I caught the idiot comments on evolution that everyone but he picked up on, I guess I should have used my "stupidity-meter;" especially after that "I'm testing my faith by defending it" remark... I wonder if he and that Chris de Vidal guy are related?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 sub_zer0, this has got to be the most fallacious argument you have yet made. Not only do you not even provide argumentation for your beliefs, you then shift the burden of proof onto me? What am I supposed to refute when an argument is not provided, sub_zer0? You must present argumentation, including evidence to support your assertions, and then I refute. If you provide nothing, then there is nothing to rebut. The arguments are provided in the Bible actually. The arguments for Christianity are in the Bible, what you could do, since that is the pont of this topic, is debate me about what the Bible says and how Christiainity views it... The burden of proof is on you who claims that the Bible is true. "An evidentiary burden or burden of leading evidence is an obligation that shifts between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. A party may submit evidence that the court will consider prima facie proof of some state of affairs. This creates an evidentiary burden upon the opposing party to present evidence to refute the presumption" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_pro...incing_evidence As you can see, you have submitted no evidence or argumentation to support your claim that the bible is in fact 100% true. All you've stated is "If some of the bible is true, all of it is true." Unfortunately, that easily works for everything else. "If some of the Koran is true, all of it is true." and "If some of the Iliad is true, all of it is true", and "If some of the Book of Satan is true, all of it is true." Which you must accept presuppositionally as true or run the risk of committing a double standard. My point is this. That some of the Bible can only be validated anyway by worldly means. Not everything in the Bible can be 100% validated and cooraberated with outside evidence. Since most of what the Bible talks about is literally true, that leads me to think the rest is true that cannot be validated. If you submit that I am wrong, then you have to provide evidence that I am wrong (which would require you to submit evidence the bible is 100% true. If you submit that I am right, then you have conceded that you cannot presuppose that the bible is true until it is verified to be so. Unless you're intellectual dishonesty is so great that you cannot even accept basic logic. If that is the case then there is no point in discussing with someone who can't even accept reality and who only adheres to logic when it suits him. The whole point about presupposition is that it doesn't matter if the Bible is 100% true, if what is in the Bible can be validated that leads me to believe in the rest. Not to mention I have my faith in it as well which backs up the fact that not all things can be validated. OUTSIDE EVIDENCE PROVING THE BIBLE IS CORRECT IN WHAT IT TALKS ABOUT: 1) Ebla tablets 2) Finds in Egypt are consistent with the time, place, and other details of biblical accounts of the Israelites in Egypt 3) The Hittites were once thought to be a biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered in Turkey. 4)Crucial find in Nuzi (northeastern Iraq), an entire cache of Hittite legal documents from 1400 B.C. 5) In 1986, scholars identified an ancient seal belonging to Baruch, son of Neriah, a scribe who recorded the prophecies of Jeremiah (Jer. 45:11). 6) THE PILATE INSCRIPTION 7) POLITARCHS IN THESSALONICA 8) SERGIUS PAULUS THE PROCONSUL OF CYPRUS 9) CONCERNING DEATH BY CRUCIFIXION 10) GALLIO, PROCONSUL OF ACHAIA I could go on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 BTW, the truth is the bible has invalidated time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, again. Yet you still believe. Do expect a pat on the head from God for that, or something?? Is that what motivates your ignorance? Name one time when the Bible has been invalidated... how about you name one time the bible has been validated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I'd be surprised too but I don't think he is a Catholic at all, which would bring up a little problem with having to accept the Nicene Creed. Even so, I'd like to see where in the bible it says that one must accept the Nicene Creed.... and yes, also I'd like to see where in the bible it says one must accept the sayings of a character in the 21st century known as Sub_Zero LOL, the Bible doesn't say you must accept the Nicene Creed. The Creed displays the core theological doctrines for Christians that you can find in the Bible. My sayings are based on the life of Christ and His teachings, that is a Christian, that is Chrstianity. how about you name one time the bible has been validated Actually I already have, if you took the time to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 So SubZ, are you Catholic or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 So... it's anybody's guess what Sub is. I'm leaning with Antlerman - that Sub thinks he's the HOLY SEE. I am nothing without Christ, that is what one needs to go to heaven, forget all other labels. A relationship with Christ is what is needed that is all I am saying. So SubZ, are you Catholic or not? I am Christian, for petes sake already. You say I am ignorant, if you haven't gathered that much info. yet, I don't know what to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 OUTSIDE EVIDENCE PROVING THE BIBLE IS CORRECT IN WHAT IT TALKS ABOUT: 1) Ebla tablets 2) Finds in Egypt are consistent with the time, place, and other details of biblical accounts of the Israelites in Egypt 3) The Hittites were once thought to be a biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered in Turkey. 4)Crucial find in Nuzi (northeastern Iraq), an entire cache of Hittite legal documents from 1400 B.C. 5) In 1986, scholars identified an ancient seal belonging to Baruch, son of Neriah, a scribe who recorded the prophecies of Jeremiah (Jer. 45:11). 6) THE PILATE INSCRIPTION 7) POLITARCHS IN THESSALONICA 8) SERGIUS PAULUS THE PROCONSUL OF CYPRUS 9) CONCERNING DEATH BY CRUCIFIXION 10) GALLIO, PROCONSUL OF ACHAIA I could go on... I'd be interisted in finding out where you got your information about the israelites in Egypt, since every reputable historian I know of thinks the exodus never actually happened. Of course all this is merely guilt by association anyway, you claim some of the history in the bible is true so there for all the crazy nonsence morallity taught in it must be true as well....I'm sorry but that doesn't hold up to logic. Even if there was an exodus it doesn't say anything about whether or n not homosexuality is a sin, or if there is even a God. Claims like that must be judged on thier own merit...not accepted just because they are stated in a book that happens to say some other true things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silent One Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 OUTSIDE EVIDENCE PROVING THE BIBLE IS CORRECT IN WHAT IT TALKS ABOUT: 1) Ebla tablets 2) Finds in Egypt are consistent with the time, place, and other details of biblical accounts of the Israelites in Egypt 3) The Hittites were once thought to be a biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered in Turkey. 4)Crucial find in Nuzi (northeastern Iraq), an entire cache of Hittite legal documents from 1400 B.C. 5) In 1986, scholars identified an ancient seal belonging to Baruch, son of Neriah, a scribe who recorded the prophecies of Jeremiah (Jer. 45:11). 6) THE PILATE INSCRIPTION 7) POLITARCHS IN THESSALONICA 8) SERGIUS PAULUS THE PROCONSUL OF CYPRUS 9) CONCERNING DEATH BY CRUCIFIXION 10) GALLIO, PROCONSUL OF ACHAIA I could go on... None of which proves any more than historical setting. Which, if you look at ANY(or almost any...Scientology doesn't count) religious text, they all have. This does not prove it's truth. Now, prove the aspects that would, the mystical and miraculous parts please. Talking critters, angels, demons - resurrections all that crap. Prove that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I am nothing without Christ, that is what one needs to go to heaven, forget all other labels. A relationship with Christ is what is needed that is all I am saying. Well OM says he has a relationship with Christ, but you say he is not a christian because he doesn't follow man-made religion. OUTSIDE EVIDENCE PROVING THE BIBLE IS CORRECT IN WHAT IT TALKS ABOUT: 1) Ebla tablets 2) Finds in Egypt are consistent with the time, place, and other details of biblical accounts of the Israelites in Egypt 3) The Hittites were once thought to be a biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered in Turkey. 4)Crucial find in Nuzi (northeastern Iraq), an entire cache of Hittite legal documents from 1400 B.C. 5) In 1986, scholars identified an ancient seal belonging to Baruch, son of Neriah, a scribe who recorded the prophecies of Jeremiah (Jer. 45:11). 6) THE PILATE INSCRIPTION 7) POLITARCHS IN THESSALONICA 8) SERGIUS PAULUS THE PROCONSUL OF CYPRUS 9) CONCERNING DEATH BY CRUCIFIXION 10) GALLIO, PROCONSUL OF ACHAIA Just because some of the bible is true, doesn't mean everything else is true. I gave you numerous examples where the bible has made a false statement. Secondly where is the evidence that I asked for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 None of which proves any more than historical setting. Which, if you look at ANY(or almost any...Scientology doesn't count) religious text, they all have. This does not prove it's truth. Now, prove the aspects that would, the mystical and miraculous parts please. Talking critters, angels, demons - resurrections all that crap. Prove that. Good it PROVES that the Bible is true in history and everything else. Now again like I said to believe what the Bible says in ALL areas, not just things that are validated by the world, takes faith!! Just because some of the bible is true, doesn't mean everything else is true. I gave you numerous examples where the bible has made a false statement. Secondly where is the evidence that I asked for. That is how I view it, because what can be validated through the Bible by archeology, etc, makes me believe everything else is true. Where has the Bible made a false statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 LOL, the Bible doesn't say you must accept the Nicene Creed. The Creed displays the core theological doctrines for Christians that you can find in the Bible. and one of the core doctrine is to believe in the Holy Catholic Church. So you not only cherry pick from the bible, but you are also doing so with man-made tradition The Nicene Creed believes in the trinity. Which has never been proven. In the other thread i posted So you finally figured out what Trinity is like. Wow, you should the publishers of the know that Hastings Dictionary of the Bible by Schribners, cause they seem to publish the following statement on page 1015 "THE TRINITY--The Christian doctrine of God (q.v.) as existing in three Persons and one Substance is NOT DEMONSTRABLE BY LOGIC OR BY SCRIPTURAL PROOFS..." You believe in something that is unscriptural or illogical. That is how I view it, because what can be validated through the Bible by archeology, etc, makes me believe everything else is true. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=6613&st=380# Archealogy has proven the bible to be false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 and one of the core doctrine is to believe in the Holy Catholic Church. So you not only cherry pick from the bible, but you are also doing so with man-made tradition The Nicene Creed believes in the trinity. Which has never been proven. In the other thread i posted I didn't cherry pick anything. If anything it should be the Church based off of Christ, not just the Catholic Church. That is unsupported by Scripture and probably means any church based off of Christ. So you finally figured out what Trinity is like. Wow, you should the publishers of the know that Hastings Dictionary of the Bible by Schribners, cause they seem to publish the following statement on page 1015 "THE TRINITY--The Christian doctrine of God (q.v.) as existing in three Persons and one Substance is NOT DEMONSTRABLE BY LOGIC OR BY SCRIPTURAL PROOFS..." You believe in something that is unscriptural or illogical. Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Genesis 1:26) Who is the "US"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 So SubZ, are you Catholic or not? I am Christian, for petes sake already. You say I am ignorant, if you haven't gathered that much info. yet, I don't know what to say. What the heck do you mean with that? You said a true Christian believes in The Nicene Creed: We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen." So why is it so hard for you to admit that you're a Catholic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Genesis 1:26) Who is the "US"? This is way too easy. This doesn't establish the Old Testament version of God as a Trinity. The very next verse shows God as one singular being. Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. The "us" in Genesis 1:26 more appropriately would be referring to God's court of heavenly beings. The Bible God surrounds himself with beings who praise him and do his bidding: Psa 148:2 Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts. Isa 6:1-3 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen." So why is it so hard for you to admit that you're a Catholic? Apparently you don't see the point of the Catholic church to be based off of the apostilic church. The Aposolic church is one that is based off of Christ's teachings. So if it is a Catholic church based off of Christ teachings etc, etc, then yes I would go to that church. But I am not Catholic, I am Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 That is how I view it, because what can be validated through the Bible by archeology, etc, makes me believe everything else is true. Where has the Bible made a false statement? You do realize that this is totally illogical don't you? And I'd still love to see some 'historical' evidence presented for the exodus, that wasn't just a retorical question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 This is way too easy. This doesn't establish the Old Testament version of God as a Trinity. The very next verse shows God as one singular being. I ask again, who is the "us" then? Gen 1:27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. OK, so God the Father creates things in His own image. God's image is a triune God. The "us" in Genesis 1:26 more appropriately would be referring to God's court of heavenly beings.The Bible God surrounds himself with beings who praise him and do his bidding: Psa 148:2 Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts. Isa 6:1-3 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. God is referring to the triunity, when it states "us". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Who is the "US"? El - the God of the Canaanites. El is sometimes masculine, sometimes feminine and sometimes plural. Hence - US. Jews were far from being monotheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Genesis 1:26) Who is the "US"? This is way too easy. This doesn't establish the Old Testament version of God as a Trinity. The very next verse shows God as one singular being. Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. The "us" in Genesis 1:26 more appropriately would be referring to God's court of heavenly beings. The Bible God surrounds himself with beings who praise him and do his bidding: I think the "Us" could also refer to all of god's sons who wanted to come down and boink earth women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I think the "Us" could also refer to all of god's sons who wanted to come down and boink earth women. What "Sons of God" came down from heaven to have sex with woman on earth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 US could also include Asherah – God’s wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts