Results 21 - 40 of 94
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: compudex Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | women take men? | Is 4:1 | compudex | 111068 | ||
Greetings cryst9m, I believe you are referring to: Isa 3:25 Your men will fall by the sword And your mighty ones in battle. Isa 3:26 And her gates will lament and mourn, And deserted she will sit on the ground. Isa 4:1 For seven women will take hold of one man in that day, saying, "We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name; take away our reproach!" The division of the chapters has interrupted the prophet’s discourse, and broken it off almost in mid sentence. “The numbers slain in battle shall be so great, that seven women shall be left to one man.” The prophet has described the greatness of this distress. The young women, contrary to their natural modesty, shall become suitors to the men: they will take hold of them, and press the men to marry them. In spite of the natural suggestions of jealousy, they will be content with a share only of the rights of marriage in common with several others; and that on hard conditions, renouncing the legal demands of the wife on the husband (*) and begging only the name and credit of wedlock, and to be freed from the reproach of celibacy. (*) Exo 21:10 "If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. compudex |
||||||
22 | When is it time to say no? | Matt 13:55 | compudex | 111042 | ||
Ray, Mat 1:1(KJV) The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Mat 1:1 NASB) The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham: These verses are using "the son" relationaly, not directly as David's son or Abraham's son. Therefore we could (in this case) replace "son" with "seed" which it actually means because the subject is the genealogy of Christ not Christ Himself. Pertaining to John 7:43 the verse IS referring to Him (the Son of God) and the verse is a narrative not a quote spoken directly by a specific indivdual. Jesus was not the Son of Joseph (of the NT). So we don't get into looking at every verse in the Scriptures I would say this: Read in context what was being said and by whom. Put yourself into the position of that person speaking with the understanding that that person had "at that time". We have the whole Bible today, they didn't. We know who Jesus was at that time, they didn't. Don't take what is known today and put it into the mouths of those yesterday. Ray, I don't see any division here. Jesus is my Lord and Jesus is your Lord the same Lord and the same Spirit. This matter does not affect our faith in God. compudex |
||||||
23 | When is it time to say no? | Matt 13:55 | compudex | 111038 | ||
Kalos, I am all for caps, but when you capitalize a quotation that was not directed toward diety, it is wrong. Look at what the Amplified Bible(AB) does to: Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's Son? Is not His mother called Mary? And are not His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? (AB)shows diety applied to the carpenter by capitalizing "Son" because "son" is used here as the possesive object. All I would like is for people reading the Scriptures to realize that one has to be aware of some of these variances. compudex |
||||||
24 | When is it time to say no? | Not Specified | compudex | 111017 | ||
When do we say 'No!" to the small but steady corruption to the Word of God? In grammar when a sentence is written with pronouns in the third person it is completely legal to replace those pronouns with their respective proper personal pronouns. Example: Tom Brown is a very tall man. Then Jim said, "Is he the one playing center position on the basketball team?" Can also be written:(legally replacing the pronoun with its respective proper personal pronoun) Tom Brown is a very tall man. Then Jim said, "Is Tom Brown the one playing center position on the basketball team?" It is by context that the men in the synagogue did NOT know that Jesus was the Son of God in the following verses: (Mat 13:54 KJV) And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? (Mat 13:55 KJV) Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? (Mat 13:56 KJV) And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (Mat 13:57 KJV) And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. (Mat 13:58 KJV) And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. Now take into consideration the following translation from the NASB: (Mat 13:54 NASB) He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? (Mat 13:55 NASB) "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? (Mat 13:56 NASB) "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" (Mat 13:57 NASB) And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household." (Mat 13:58 NASB) And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief. When the NASB capitalized some of the pronouns, changing "his mother", "his brothers" and "his sisters" to "His mother", "His brothers" and "His sisters" thus giving the pronouns the connotation of divinity we should be able to replace the pronouns with their respective proper personal pronoun. This would give us the following translation for Mat 13:55, 56: "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not the Son of God's mother called Mary, and the Son of God's brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And the Son of God's sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" By capitalizing these pronouns it compromises the true meaning of these verses. It changes the aspect that the men of the synagogue DID know who it was teaching them. And since the NASB also inserted quote marks even makes the corruption worse by then saying that these were the exact words of the man speaking them. If you are going to quote a man, you must quote the man. Grammatically, it is illegal to do otherwise. And in today's world you could get sued for doing so. This type of translation corrupts the very meaning of the context of these verses. Ascribing divinity to a quote when it was not intended. Do we care about these minor little things that will eventually become the norm? Or should we just stand by and say nothing? No malice is intended and any answers to this should also bare this in mind. compudex |
||||||
25 | When is it time to say no? | Matt 13:55 | compudex | 111021 | ||
When do we say 'No!" to the small but steady corruption to the Word of God? In grammar when a sentence is written with pronouns in the third person it is completely legal to replace those pronouns with their respective proper personal pronouns. Example: Tom Brown is a very tall man. Then Jim said, "Is he the one playing center position on the basketball team?" Can also be written:(legally replacing the pronoun with its respective proper personal pronoun) Tom Brown is a very tall man. Then Jim said, "Is Tom Brown the one playing center position on the basketball team?" It is by context that the men in the synagogue did NOT know that Jesus was the Son of God in the following verses: (Mat 13:54 KJV) And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? (Mat 13:55 KJV) Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? (Mat 13:56 KJV) And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (Mat 13:57 KJV) And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. (Mat 13:58 KJV) And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. Now take into consideration the following translation from the NASB: (Mat 13:54 NASB) He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? (Mat 13:55 NASB) "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? (Mat 13:56 NASB) "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" (Mat 13:57 NASB) And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household." (Mat 13:58 NASB) And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief. When the NASB capitalized some of the pronouns, changing "his mother", "his brothers" and "his sisters" to "His mother", "His brothers" and "His sisters" thus giving the pronouns the connotation of divinity we should be able to replace the pronouns with their respective proper personal pronoun. This would give us the following translation for Mat 13:55, 56: "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not the Son of God's mother called Mary, and the Son of God's brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And the Son of God's sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" By capitalizing these pronouns it compromises the true meaning of these verses. It changes the aspect that the men of the synagogue DID know who it was teaching them. And since the NASB also inserted quote marks even makes the corruption worse by then saying that these were the exact words of the man speaking them. If you are going to quote a man, you must quote the man. Grammatically, it is illegal to do otherwise. And in today's world you could get sued for doing so. This type of translation corrupts the very meaning of the context of these verses. Ascribing divinity to a quote when it was not intended. Do we care about these minor little things that will eventually become the norm? Or should we just stand by and say nothing? No malice is intended and any answers to this should also bare this in mind. compudex |
||||||
26 | When is it time to say no? | John 10:33 | compudex | 111023 | ||
When do we say 'No!" to the small but steady corruption to the Word of God? In grammar when a sentence is written with pronouns in the third person it is completely legal to replace those pronouns with their respective proper personal pronouns. Example: Tom Brown is a very tall man. Then Jim said, "Is he the one playing center position on the basketball team?" Can also be written:(legally replacing the pronoun with its respective proper personal pronoun) Tom Brown is a very tall man. Then Jim said, "Is Tom Brown the one playing center position on the basketball team?" It is by context that the men in the synagogue did NOT know that Jesus was the Son of God in the following verses: (Mat 13:54 KJV) And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? (Mat 13:55 KJV) Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? (Mat 13:56 KJV) And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (Mat 13:57 KJV) And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. (Mat 13:58 KJV) And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. Now take into consideration the following translation from the NASB: (Mat 13:54 NASB) He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? (Mat 13:55 NASB) "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? (Mat 13:56 NASB) "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" (Mat 13:57 NASB) And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household." (Mat 13:58 NASB) And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief. When the NASB capitalized some of the pronouns, changing "his mother", "his brothers" and "his sisters" to "His mother", "His brothers" and "His sisters" thus giving the pronouns the connotation of divinity we should be able to replace the pronouns with their respective proper personal pronoun. This would give us the following translation for Mat 13:55, 56: "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not the Son of God's mother called Mary, and the Son of God's brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And the Son of God's sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" By capitalizing these pronouns it compromises the true meaning of these verses. It changes the aspect that the men of the synagogue DID know who it was teaching them. And since the NASB also inserted quote marks even makes the corruption worse by then saying that these were the exact words of the man speaking them. If you are going to quote a man, you must quote the man. Grammatically, it is illegal to do otherwise. And in today's world you could get sued for doing so. This type of translation corrupts the very meaning of the context of these verses. Ascribing divinity to a quote when it was not intended. Do we care about these minor little things that will eventually become the norm? Or should we just stand by and say nothing? No malice is intended and any answers to this should also bare this in mind. compudex |
||||||
27 | When is it time to say no? | 2 Tim 3:1 | compudex | 111019 | ||
When do we say 'No!" to the small but steady corruption to the Word of God? In grammar when a sentence is written with pronouns in the third person it is completely legal to replace those pronouns with their respective proper personal pronouns. Example: Tom Brown is a very tall man. Then Jim said, "Is he the one playing center position on the basketball team?" Can also be written:(legally replacing the pronoun with its respective proper personal pronoun) Tom Brown is a very tall man. Then Jim said, "Is Tom Brown the one playing center position on the basketball team?" It is by context that the men in the synagogue did NOT know that Jesus was the Son of God in the following verses: (Mat 13:54 KJV) And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? (Mat 13:55 KJV) Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? (Mat 13:56 KJV) And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (Mat 13:57 KJV) And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. (Mat 13:58 KJV) And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. Now take into consideration the following translation from the NASB: (Mat 13:54 NASB) He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? (Mat 13:55 NASB) "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? (Mat 13:56 NASB) "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" (Mat 13:57 NASB) And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household." (Mat 13:58 NASB) And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief. When the NASB capitalized some of the pronouns, changing "his mother", "his brothers" and "his sisters" to "His mother", "His brothers" and "His sisters" thus giving the pronouns the connotation of divinity we should be able to replace the pronouns with their respective proper personal pronoun. This would give us the following translation for Mat 13:55, 56: "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not the Son of God's mother called Mary, and the Son of God's brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And the Son of God's sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" By capitalizing these pronouns it compromises the true meaning of these verses. It changes the aspect that the men of the synagogue DID know who it was teaching them. And since the NASB also inserted quote marks even makes the corruption worse by then saying that these were the exact words of the man speaking them. If you are going to quote a man, you must quote the man. Grammatically, it is illegal to do otherwise. And in today's world you could get sued for doing so. This type of translation corrupts the very meaning of the context of these verses. Ascribing divinity to a quote when it was not intended. Do we care about these minor little things that will eventually become the norm? Or should we just stand by and say nothing? No malice is intended and any answers to this should also bare this in mind. compudex |
||||||
28 | Girlfriends racist parents. HELP ME! | Bible general Archive 2 | compudex | 109949 | ||
Dear kasmapalities, Sorry I mistook your first post. Are you the same, kasmapalities, as on the Atari Forum? At least you know where I stand on the other sublect! Thanks for your understanding. Compudex is still human. |
||||||
29 | Girlfriends racist parents. HELP ME! | Bible general Archive 2 | compudex | 109942 | ||
Dear Hank, The idea came from her own words; "and me and my girlfriend (we are both christians) have been in love for 9 months now. We are an interracial couple". Thank you. |
||||||
30 | Girlfriends racist parents. HELP ME! | Bible general Archive 2 | compudex | 109937 | ||
Since I see the rest of this forum is hesitant to speak on this issue, I will. I will NOT let the Word of God be perverted! If your continue to live in a same sex relation you are not a Christian! Your lifestyle is an abomination to God! God said, And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy.. Lev 20:26 I am amazed at how fast we turn to the pressures of the world and forget God. Is the Word of God without affect? Do we adhere to the laws of man first or of God first? Does not the Scriptures teach us that men sexually active with men and women sexually active with women are an abomination to the Lord? From the beginning this behavior has been condemned by God: Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (this applies to women also) Did God take the rib from Adam and make Bruce? Or was the rib taken from woman? And this practice is still condemned today: Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient... Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. 1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. Now, I have written these things to you so you may know that this type of behavior is unacceptable in the kingdom of God. Now, you have the knowledge and the truth. Now, you are without excuse. Separate yourself from this association. Exhort the brethren and lift them up and remind them of the Gospel that was first preached to you. Rev 2:29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. Be a servant of Christ first! This really is not a racial thing. |
||||||
31 | Son of man? | Dan 7:13 | compudex | 109815 | ||
welcome pgs, First you must understand exactly who Jesus is. Jesus is, was, God in the flesh. What you read in the scriptures about Jesus is really about God the Father. Jesus is the Word of the Father. The Father is the all, immutable power of the entire time-line, creator, and author of everything that has ever been or will ever be. Jesus is that part of God that was manifested to men. If you read about Jesus, you are reading about the Father. The Father is He that is in control of all things. God is Spirit. Jesus was flesh. Jesus is that part of God until He took upon Himself flesh, then He became Jesus. Jesus said, what I speak is that which I have heard from the Father. Jesus is the Word of the Father. Jesus is the Flesh into which we can see the characteristics of the Father. We see the Father by what we see in Jesus. Did He condemn? Did He kill? Did He inflict injury? Answer this: What was the purpose for God to come to Earth? God came to Earth to let man know that he had a friend in the heavens that was in love with His creation and that He would not let them go until they understood what He expected of them and that men might know Him. He gave us the choice to select good or evil. The “son of man” was born of simple man; He was debased by a simple and lowly place of birth, a stable, and a simple life, a carpenter. He was not anything special. Isaiah tells us that He was not a good-looking man that anyone should desire Him. (Isa 53:2) For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He came to us as any other man. We would not know Him from any other man walking down the street. He did not display Himself (no ego). Time and time again He asked for no recognition. As being called the “son of man”, He was the lowliest of the lowly. Born in a stable by a couple that was being scrutinized as having sex before marriage and surely the talk of the town. Son of man was the son of any ordinary couple, and the son of any one that loves God. The son of man that will and would take upon Himself to be obedient to the God that He was raised to believe in and had faith in, as a human. Even though He was God He took upon Himself the ordinary, the susceptible human traits that we have. (Heb 2:16) For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. He took upon Himself the seed of a man, the seed of the promise (Abraham). The promise being that in a simple man that Loved and listened to the Father and did the will of the Father no matter what, He was willing to do the same because of His love for the Father and His love for the creation of man and man himself. (Rev 3:12) Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. May the light of God lead you! |
||||||
32 | What light was created on day one? | John 9:5 | compudex | 105193 | ||
Thank you sister, and no harm was meant. But I find a lot of responses that do not have anything to do with the subject at hand, and yours, in this case, was one of those. I cannot see (blind) why some cannot answer the question as presented. I look for answers to questions I have and if the responses are not about the question then what use is there in asking? Maybe some just like to sit by the computer and play. This is not play to me. Either truth or don't respond. Peace to you compudex |
||||||
33 | Why did God create man? | Not Specified | compudex | 105189 | ||
Why did God create man? | ||||||
34 | Why did God create man? | Rom 5:8 | compudex | 105204 | ||
Why did God create man? | ||||||
35 | What light was created on day one? | John 9:5 | compudex | 105188 | ||
Well, I appreciate your response. I was not trying to be nasty just trying to be honest. I was asking a question about creation and all I got was some spiritual stuff. Maybe I am dwelling in darkness or maybe some just haven't seen the light. Anyway if you filed an abuse claim then you have that privilage. I am looking for some answers not some theories. That what this forum is about, right? I guess the MAIN question to my mind is why did God create man? I will post this as a new thread. Thanks. Peace to you. compudex |
||||||
36 | What light was created on day one? | John 9:5 | compudex | 105181 | ||
Oh, how true that is. And blindness takes many forms! You wrote: "Certainly the creation of light enables us to not only distinguish everything else that He has created, but it gives us an opportunity to understand the difference it makes in our lives when we dewll in darkness." What a bunch of tripe. How can you understand the difference when you dwell in darkness? No more platitudes, please. BUT we are talking about creation, not spirituality. Today we see the truth. But in the days of creation things were not so clear, were they? I myself can be heavenly minded, but when it comes to explaining simple fact or discussing light and dark, ABOUT CREATION, then we must be a little more earthly. It has been said that some are so heavenly minded they are no earthly good. I did not say this. Peace to you. compudex |
||||||
37 | Am I going to Heaven | Deut 23:2 | compudex | 105150 | ||
Dear stonerocker, (about Deut 23:2; many are unclear about this, some say that it means serving in the congregation or the tabernacle with the Levites) For by the LAW none will be saved. "For all we like sheep have gone astray. There is none good, no not one." Christ came not to do away with the law but to fulfill the law. He is the fulfillment of the law in that what we could not do under the law He did. Therefore rendering Him sinless. And, as a sinless sacrifice on Calvary, He became the offering to the Father for ALL of us. Your concern is very important. You have a desire to do what is right and ask this question. As our Lord says, "Let not your heart be troubled, if you believe in God, believe in me also." First things first. God DOES NOT LIE!!!! Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Here, Isaiah is talking about the coming of the Messiah, Christ Jesus, who will take away the sins of the world. Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. Above we see three (3) phrases that are the MOST important. 1. whosoever believeth 2. sent not 3. to condemn And finally the results of that promise..."should not perish, but have everlasting life." But, mainly the very point of all this is up to you. Do you believe? This question that everyone must answer is the solution. Peace to you, compudex |
||||||
38 | what is the light mentioned in gen.2:3 | Gen 2:3 | compudex | 105147 | ||
Did you intend to mean Genesis 1:3? If you did, you can look at the thread # 100254. |
||||||
39 | What light was created on day one? | John 9:5 | compudex | 105146 | ||
Hello mommapbs, After some time to ponder on these things, certain other questions have come forward. You said: "I don't know if "created" is the proper word" Well, we are talking about creation aren't we? Like in six days! Or don't we count the first day? You said: "an interesting concept to consider: dividing of the light from the darkness . . . could this be the separation of Lucifer and his followers as a result of their rebellion?" Again this answer has nothing to do about creation of the earth. You said: "So where did the light come from for them to grow and reproduce?" If they were made infant plants on day five Adam would have nothing to eat on day six. Do plants grow, mature and reproduce in one day? No, they were made mature. i.e. which came first, the chicken or the egg? You need the chicken to get the egg. Gen 1:11 "...the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself..." Not the seed yielding a tree, but the tree yielding a seed. But, anyway, thank you for your answers. As asking God what He meant by these words I have come to the conclusion that they mean exaclty what they say. He created light. He created the, if you will, the mechanics or physics of the laws of light. And since we comprehend most things by how we see them it is with light that these things are understood. For a blind person from birth has no concept of exactly how a tree looks. Without light creation would be formless to us. It has been said that the eye is the entrance to the brain. Then He created the heavenly bodies to use these laws and to emit that light upon the earth. I understand your spiritual meanings, but these things mentioned in Genesis are physical. In the beginning God created... Peace to you. compudex |
||||||
40 | ...liars, shall have their part in.... | 1 Sam 21:1 | compudex | 102334 | ||
Then I am at a loss why God would bless them. It is not out of the will of God to defy a king that wants them to commit murder. I should drop dead right now if I knowingly Play with the Word of God. "Scripture teaches the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Yes, and that is why this forum is here. So we can share and learn from one another. Peace to you! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |