|
09-18-2008, 02:53 PM | #27 | |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 696
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
Quote:
|
|
09-18-2008, 03:13 PM | #28 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: at school
Posts: 11
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
What you have to understand about the Bible is that it wasn't written by God himself. It was written by men who were prophets, holy men, and apostles of Jesus. Everything that is written was also translated, so it depends on the version you get. The Catholic ones are probably the ones that are closest to the real thing, on account of them not taking things out and twisting things around. Also, you need to take what is written with a grain of salt. It is mostly not to be taken literally. Most things written in the Bible are metaphors. It's like reading poetry, you have to read it, and translate it in your own mind to make it make sense for you. When reading the Bible, you have to have an open mind and read it more with your soul than with your brain.
I hope that helps. <3 Tara |
09-18-2008, 03:17 PM | #29 | |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Philly
Posts: 179
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
Quote:
You have got it exactly right. Kudos |
|
09-18-2008, 03:22 PM | #30 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South of Heaven
Posts: 115
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
i have reed the bible many times and its an amassing book, the storys are just good.... but i dont buy the divine of GOD, but i may picture God (and jesus) as highly enlighten, spiritual and technological entity(`s) guiding men, but still mortal..
the bible is also an "victim" of censorship, it should have included all scripts and not only few selected... |
09-18-2008, 03:29 PM | #31 | |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 696
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
Quote:
|
|
09-18-2008, 03:41 PM | #32 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South of Heaven
Posts: 115
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
hi
yes i was waiting for that one... i do not believe that god created the universe, i think thats more of an extreme complicated proses, but the theme of creation in the bible i think is a more lokal event, in the way of terraforming or just seeding out solar system, and transcripting the terms to an human understandeble realm, like night and day sea and sky..and so forth.. tnx |
09-18-2008, 04:34 PM | #33 | |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: On a boat in Tacoma, wa, usa
Posts: 394
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
Puts on the rubber boots and wades in. Waves a hand at Musado.
First I would like to point out that this thread demonstrates certain specific tactics of "agents" in forums This one is added to our research list, thank you all. Bostonirish22 mentions the Catholic bible, Quote:
Considering what many are now investigating about the bible and ET connection, I would take it seriously. |
|
09-18-2008, 04:42 PM | #34 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: On a boat in Tacoma, wa, usa
Posts: 394
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
The Gods that created us are probably of the oldest ET beings. "Ancient of days" type of idea. As the bible points out other beings have been created also.
Where the first sentient intelligent life may have come from is unknown. What is known is that those that created us, also created the universe of over 400 billion galaxies in it. Quite the work. |
09-18-2008, 05:02 PM | #35 | |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Philly
Posts: 179
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
Quote:
LOL...the real agents have better things to do. And I agree with the rest of your post |
|
09-18-2008, 05:10 PM | #36 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 416
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
I am not a religious person, to the extent that I believe in a single judgemental king that we call countless different names. I feel like the bible along with other religious texts are metaphores and are written in a non literal sense. Then you have to take into account that it is read in english which is not the language it was written in. Then it was translated by people in power and used to controll people. However, I still have a hard time arguing with right and wrong. The bible says that if you are good and you accept god into your heart you will go to heaven. This seems like a metaphore for the law of the universe, or karma; if you fight against the positive energy of the universe than you will feel pain or hell. Forgiveness and love will bring you into the light. How can anybody argue that. God comes from the sky and many people on this fourm feel like knowlege or et's came from the sky or heavens. I feel like the bible along with every other sacred text or teaching is a message of metaphore to show us how to treat eachother and live in this cosmic plane. Granted that man has had their hands on these books for a very long time now and I am sure that the message is twisted. I still feel that these books should not be discredited and infact we can learn from them as long as we keep in the context of the world we live in now.
|
09-18-2008, 05:37 PM | #37 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 416
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
Something else to ponder about is the fact that alot of the sacred books that were should have been shown to us were never put in the bible.
|
09-18-2008, 06:06 PM | #38 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: at school
Posts: 11
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
I was just saying that the Catholic Bible's Old Testament, the bible I have, includes the Torah, whereas other denominations take out several books of the Torah.
|
09-18-2008, 06:12 PM | #39 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: at school
Posts: 11
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
This may sound off topic, but if you want help understanding God or the Bible, read the Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis.
I read them all about a year ago, and they are truly enlightening. If you read them all you'll see what I mean, especially when you reach the last book. haha. |
09-18-2008, 06:18 PM | #40 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 99
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
I watched this video on youtube from Michael Tsarion which gives a different outlook on who is behind religion and humanities evils
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AhbG...eature=related it's in 13 parts abot 8-10 min. each it's another point of view to think about |
09-18-2008, 07:53 PM | #41 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 60
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
Some facts regarding some of the Bible...
The external evidence test Was the New Testament discredited by modern discoveries? I’ve heard it said that New Testament passages are inaccurate, unhistorical or unscientific. That used to be claimed… because often the New Testament was the only source for such statements. But there’s no excuse now. Some modern writers are lying about this matter. And others are ignorant of the facts. But let me fill you in with what’s been happening... Five porticos at the Bethesda pool The book of John (5:1-15) relates how Jesus healed an invalid by the pool at Bethesda, which John describes as having five porticoes (colonnaded porches). Because no such place had been found, critics were fond of asserting that John was wrong. Then one day the pool was found and excavated. And you know what? Archaeologists discovered five porticoes – exactly as John had described. (Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998, p. 99) The census at Jesus’ birth Again, critics argued that Luke’s portrayal of events surrounding the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-3) was wrong. The critics asserted there was no census, that Quirinius was not governor of Syria at that time, but later. And that everyone did not have to return to his ancestral home for taxing. However, archaeological discoveries have since shown that: 1. Regular enrollment of taxpayers, as well as a 14-year census, were begun under the emperor Augustus, just as Luke wrote. 2. Quirinius was governor twice, including the time Luke says. 3. The conduct of a census did require that people return to their homes to complete the family registration. (A papyrus has now been found in Egypt confirming this.) (Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999, pp. 63,64) Alleged geographical “mistakes”... Again, it was believed that Luke was wrong in implying that Lystra and Derbe (but not Iconium) were in Lycaonia (Acts 14:6). They based their criticism upon a statement by Cicero. Then Sir William Ramsay found a monument that confirmed Luke’s statement. (Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History. Wheaton: Scripture Press, 1969, p. 317) Nazareth existing in first century Yet, despite the mountain of evidence supporting the truth of the New Testament accounts, there are still some writers who peddle the same outdated nonsense to us. Thus, in one of David Icke’s books, he says concerning the first century, that ‘NAZARETH DID NOT EXIST AT THAT TIME.’ (David Icke, The Big Secret. Wildwood, MO.: Bridge of Love Publications, USA, p.99) Oh, do come on. The place was so real between the years AD 44 and 50, that it merited an emperor’s decree carved in stone and directed probably at the people living there. How do we know? From Nazareth, Jesus’ home town, there came to light in 1878 a most interesting slab of marble, inscribed in a Greek text. For many years it lay in the Froehner collection, its value unrecognized until 1930. It is now in the Louvre, Paris. The text contains a decree issued by an unnamed Roman emperor prohibiting under penalty of death, any kind of tomb robbery, including tombs of relatives, or the moving of a body to another place. It reads: Ordinance of Caesar. It is my pleasure that graves and tombs remain undisturbed in perpetuity for those who have made them for the cult of their ancestors, or children or members of their house. If, however, any man lay information that another has either demolished them, or has in any other way extracted the buried, or maliciously transferred them to other places in order to wrong them, or has displaced the sealing or other stones, against such a one I order that a trial be instituted as in respect of the gods, as in regard to the cult of mortals. For it shall be much more obligatory to honor the buried. Let it be absolutely forbidden for anyone to disturb them. In the case of contravention I desire that the offender be sentenced to capital punishment on charge of violation of sepulture. What date is that inscription? It has been placed somewhere between AD 44 and 50, which was during the reign of Claudius Caesar, who was noted for his persecution of the Jews. This was not many years after the death of Jesus. It is believed that the preaching of the resurrection had already begun in Rome by this time. Perhaps this decree reflected the fact that the enemies of Christianity had faced up to the empty tomb story. The placing of the decree on a rock in the little, unimportant town of Nazareth where Jesus was reared, indicates a possible relationship between the decree of Caesar and the empty tomb of Jesus. Nazareth did not exist at that time? This discovery knocks that claim on the head!” Alleged personality “mistakes” Interesting, isn’t it? The critic shouts himself hoarse. Archaeology comes along. And the New Testament is vindicated. It happens time and again. That’s a one-sided contest, if you ask me. Here’s another example. Luke had claimed that Lysanius, the tetrarch of Abilene, ruled Syria and Palestine (Luke 3:1) at the start of John the Baptist’s ministry in AD 27. The only Lysanius known to ancient historians was one who was killed in BC 36. So Luke was accused of being mistaken. However, an inscription now found at Abila near Damascus speaks of “Freedman of Lysanias the Terarch”, and is dated between AD 14 and 29. (F.F. Bruce, “Archaeological Confirmation of the New Testament”. In Carl Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969, p. 321) Want more examples?: Paul makes mention of the Corinth city treasurer, Erastus (Romans 16:23). During excavations at Corinth in 1929, a pavement was found inscribed: ERASTVS PRO:AED:S:P: STRAVIT (‘Erastus, curator of public buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense.’) (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter Varsity Press, 1964, p. 95) Luke gives to Publius, the chief man in Malta, the title ‘first man of the island’ (Acts 28:7). Inscriptions have been unearthed that do give him the title of ‘first man’. (F.F. Bruce, “Archaeological Confirmation of the New Testament”. In Carl Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969, p. 325) Luke was assumed to be wrong for using the term politarchs to denote the civil authorities of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) – because ‘politarch’ is not found in classical literature. However, there have now been found some 19 inscriptions that make use of that title. One of the inscriptions was discovered in a Roman arch at Thessalonica and in it are found the names of six of that city’s politarchs. (Ibid., pp. 325,360) Pontius Pilate The New Testament records that Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea when Jesus was crucified (AD 31). However Icke the critic claims that ‘Pontius’ was a fictitious name invented only after AD 85. Icke also asserts that the Gospel of Luke was written after this date. Icke claims that a man called Pliny visited a place called Pontus from the year AD 85 onwards ‘and this is the origin of the first name of Pontius Pilate. He was only called Pilate in Matthew and Mark,… but in Luke, the one Piso wrote with Pliny, Pilate suddenly acquires the name, Pontius. Luke was written in the very years that Pliny began to visit Pontus.’ (David Icke, The Big Secret. Wildwood, MO.: Bridge of Love Publications, USA, p. 110) Thank you, David Icke for that contribution. So is Icke right? Or the Gospel of Luke? Now let archaeology be the referee… His name on historic inscription: In 1961, at the city of Caesarea, an Italian excavation uncovered a huge block of limestone. It bore an inscription containing the name – wait for it - ‘Pontius Pilate’. The block, probably from the period of Emperor Tiberius (AD 12 to 37) is engraved with the words: ………S TIBERIEVM [Tiberieum] ……[PO]NTIVS PILATVS [Pontius Pilate] [PRA]ECTVS IVDA[EA]E [Prefect Judea] The first word, ‘Tiberieum’, probably refers to a temple dedicated to the emperor Tiberius. Mentioned by Roman historian: Is that all? Not quite. The well known Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus (born around 52 AD), also mentions Pontius Pilate, and states that Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus Christ. In 112 AD, Tacitus became Governor of Asia. He wrote in his history: Nothing which could be done by man, nor any amount of treasure that the prince could give, nor all the sacrifices which could be presented to the gods, could clear Nero from being believed to have ordered the burning, the fire of Rome. So to silence the rumor, he tortured and made false accusations against those who were called the Christians, who were hated for their large following. Christus, the founder of the name, was executed by Pontius Pilate, the Judean procurator, during the rule of Tiberius. [AD 14 to AD 37] (Tacitus, Annals, 15:44; cited by Justin Martyr, Apology, 1.48. Emphasis added) He further says: At his coming the lame shall leap, tongues that stammer shall speak clearly, the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be cleansed, and the dead shall rise and walk about. And you can learn that he did all these things from the Acts of Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate a fictitious name invented after AD 85? Icke, what’s got into you? Summary Colin Hemer, a noted Roman historian, has catalogued numerous archaeological and historical confirmations of Luke’s accuracy. His report is voluminous and detailed. His research includes: · Specialised details, which would not have been widely known except to a CONTEMPORARY researcher such as Luke who traveled widely. For example, exact titles of officials, identification of army units, and information about major routes. · Details which archaeologists know are accurate but cannot verify as to the precise time period. Some of these are unlikely to have been known except to a writer who had visited the districts. · Correlation of known kings and governors with the chronology of the narrative. · Facts appropriate to the date of a contemporary but not to a date earlier or later. · ‘Undesigned coincidents’ between the writings of Luke and Paul. · Other materials, the ‘immediacy’ of which suggests that the author was recounting a recent experience, rather than shaping or editing a text long after it had been written. · Cultural or idiomatic items now known to be peculiar to the first century atmosphere, but not later. (Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990, pp.104-107) One archaeologist carefully studied Luke’s references. He discovered that Luke names 32 countries, 54 cities and 9 islands without an error! (Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1992, p. 385) Ramsay the skeptic One of the greatest archaeologists of all time was Sir William Ramsay. As a student in the German historical school of the midnineteenth century, Ramsay was firmly convinced that the New Testament book of Acts was a fraudulent product of the midsecond century AD. In his research to make a topographical study of Asia Minor, he was compelled to consider the New Testament writings of Luke. Here is how he relates his experience... I began with a mind unfavourable to it… but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvellous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations. (Edward Musgrave Blaiklock, Layman’s Answer: An Examination of the New Theology. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1968, p. 36 – quoted from Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen) You know, guys, as a result of that, Ramsay was forced to do a complete reversal of his beliefs. He concluded after thirty years of study that ‘Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy… this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.’ (Sir W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915, p. 222) Luke’s “unsurpassed… trustworthiness” In fact, Ramsay concluded that ‘Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.’ (W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962, p. 81) Since then, further discoveries have shown New Testament writers such as Luke to be careful historians. The verdict of Roman historian A.N. Sherwin-White. He declares: For Acts [in the New Testament] the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have taken it for granted. (A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, reprint edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978, p. 189) Dr Gleason Archer undertook a painstakingly detailed investigation into this question. Notice his report: As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself – or else by objective archaeological information. The deductions that may be validly drawn from ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, or Akkadian documents all harmonize with the biblical record. (Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982, p. 12) And former skeptic Josh McDowell adds his testimony: After trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scripture, I came to the conclusion that it is historically trustworthy. If one discards the Bible as being unreliable, then one must discard almost all literature of antiquity. One problem I constantly face is the desire on the part of many to apply one standard or test to secular literature and another to the Bible. One must apply the same test, whether the literature under investigation is secular or religious. Having done this, I believe we can…say, ‘The Bible is trustworthy and historically reliable. (Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999, p. 68) What gets to me is the way the critics try to hide all this evidence from us. Is it because they suffer from a lack of integrity? Or more likely that they’re just quoting someone else who is as ignorant as they are? These very critics you put your trust in, are not going to help you survive death. But that Deliverer they like to attack so much – what if He really is the only answer to man’s problems? Jonathan Gray http://www.beforeus.com |
09-18-2008, 08:57 PM | #42 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hideing From The Clandestine Dark Suit's!
Posts: 190
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
[QUOTE=Norval;18709]Puts on the rubber boots and wades in. Waves a hand at Musado.
First I would like to point out that this thread demonstrates certain specific tactics of "agents" in forums This one is added to our research list, thank you all. [QUOTE] Wow accusation's on a extreme level, If I were a Disinformation Agent I'd get paided for this ****, Sadly I don't so no....no "Agents" here. |
09-19-2008, 01:48 AM | #43 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: On a boat in Tacoma, wa, usa
Posts: 394
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
uhmmmm sorry.
There is no way I was thinking of anyone in particular. That research and investigation is after the collection of posters methodologies. Last edited by Norval; 09-19-2008 at 01:51 AM. |
09-19-2008, 02:05 AM | #44 | |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: On a boat in Tacoma, wa, usa
Posts: 394
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah bostonirish22 What a fantastic collection of writings. Have read them to many young ones over the years. Makes one want to go looking through old attics. Yet, you may want to do more research about bibles. Moses's first five books of the bibles, the basic Torah, are in all most all bibles I have read. Actually, in all of the bibles I have read. (sighs, I really need a life, , about a couple dozen) Stabris8 Nice posting of info there. |
|
09-19-2008, 02:11 AM | #45 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 171
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
I grew up catholic and read the bible many times as a child.
A rip-roaring read full of grandeur, intrigue, politics and begatting. I remember walking to church every morning before school for lent one year because I felt pretty strongly about my faith. When I turned 13 I felt differently. Faith in God is to be respected as is the choice not to believe in that God which isn't a lack of faith but a belief in something else. The 'bible' was created at Nicea over several councils was it not. It tried to cover a lot of bases and erase some others in the name of empire and control. Jesus was created to satisfy the pagan element being a hybrid of many of their beliefs - Horus, Krishna and Hebus. The faith matters not the book because it's not the word of God nor does it claim to be. It's a work of man and as flawed as we are but in the end we are all Brothers and Sisters and we should respect each other as such. |
09-19-2008, 02:58 AM | #46 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 191
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
I always say,
One must understand the concept of the breaking of the bread. Simple,Efficient,Philosophical. |
09-19-2008, 03:00 AM | #47 |
Project Avalon Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: i live in puerto rico
Posts: 643
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
The Bible is a spiritual uplifting, Holy Book. I study the bible since my childhood, and to my amazement some things are true ,other things are just plain and simple fairy tales. No offense. We as human can be divinely inspire but we do not have all the answers.When the Bible was cannonized at the council of Nicea a theology was agreed upon which in reality was 360 degrees
from what the experience of the real Teachers of that time was, for example Jesus mother, many holy books are kept from public view and even burned. We are getting half truth base on the understanding of the Theology form at the council of nicea. A real shame if you ask me. Nevertheless God, Prime Creator,the Origin, The first dude, or whatever you wish to call him is found here in the Bible highly restricted to a narrow view. While the story of our Origin is so much more incredible. Bible Doom's Day , has created the chosen ones vs. the unchosen, Great idea hah. Dominion of fear by the use of religion using God to promote me the CHOSEN ONE. Asking questions , meditation and yes divine inspiration will unlock the true secrets of the Bible or for use of a better word the universe. The problem is that when I think myself to be the only one who is divinely inspire, Oh hell, my ego got in the way of my inspiration and so creates the flaw in my divine inspiration. 7 billion interpretations of the truth..... Last edited by Frank Samuel; 09-19-2008 at 02:05 PM. |
09-19-2008, 04:40 AM | #48 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: at school
Posts: 11
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
i had a nice long talk with my best friend and my dad the other day, about the bible and the differences between the catholic one and some of the protestant ones. and i know that there are versions they use that do not include parts of the old testament. so stop shutting down what i know to be fact before you frustrate me to tears. yeah, the ones you read may have been "whole," but all i'm TRYING to say is that there are some that aren't.
|
09-19-2008, 12:15 PM | #49 | |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 60
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
Quote:
|
|
09-19-2008, 12:58 PM | #50 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 34
|
Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
The fact is this. The bible has remained true in its entirety. Can man be trusted?
Romans 3:4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge." Jesus fullfilled over 300 prophecsies about himself which he was destined to fullfill. I say if you are going to be trusting anyone in the entire history of this world then I cannot think of anyone but the Lord Yeshua Messiah. Matthew 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law. John 15:7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. |
|
|