Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Biblical Texts: explication & discussion

Philosophy Forum
» Christianity
» Biblical Texts: explication & discussion

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

While I have noticed a couple of threads that have bearing on this subject to some extent, and a recent one has touched on a related matter as well, there appears to have been no recent thread of the particular caliber and focus which I would hope to develop here. This would be as much a presentation to support a particular view, as a discussion/debate on the subject or any particular view. I look forward to hearing and discussing the finer points with those interested.

In the English speaking world, the word Bible more usually brings to mind a book which is used by the general Christian belief-system. The Jewish belief-system of today may use the Tanakh, but will also (and more so?) use the Talmud. In these two systems, nevertheless, it is only true that the ultimate source of data, whether applied directly or indirectly, are the written documents left behind by the leaders/members of these two systems—there appears to be extremely little oral tradition left floating around. (the Talmud is now in written form)

My objective in this thread is to present, discuss, and debate some of the main 'players' (or points) involved in discussions on, from, or about this single volume work we call, today, the Bible. These 'players' are involved in much of my applications regarding biblical theology, these religious belief-systems, etc., and are as follows:

[INDENT]Who authored document x ?

When was it thought to have been penned?

What is it communicating, and why is it communicating that, and how can we generally understand that it is communicating what we reason it to be?

What can be made of any truth values contained in the contents of the document and those attached to the document today?

[/INDENT]My applications do arrive at the conclusion that these biblical texts by far, more so evidence nothing more than mere human activity, and in areas, imagination--a lack of supernatural superintendence--and as such are greatly overrated (regardless of being classic works, holding their own with the likes the Upahishads, the Illiad, or the writings of Lao-tse.

By ‘biblical texts,’ I intend to hold a fairly broad definition (or range) including any fragment, papyrus, codex (or portion thereof), scroll, or other form of instrument which can be seen as being related to a section of, or copy of any single ‘book’ of our Bible of today—including the standard OT Apocrypha—or traced to, or used by, any community of any size within the general belief-systems of Judaism and/or Christianity over time. Additionally, I wish to retain the useful comparison of ancient, contemporaneous non-biblical works to investigate genre, motif, pericope, etc. of the canonical works. When needed (and at times, possible), I will provide source materials.

My first steps will be to show how the general and common claim by fundamentalists and/or Bible literalist among the stricter Protestant sects are in error with proofs towards the claim that the Bible is the result of supernatural superintendence.

In closing this long-winded introduction OP, I'd like to ask that all proper courtesy and academical attitude be maintained by all who join in . . . please/ Thanks ! KJ

① It is generally taken that the original autographs would have been. (to various degrees by some)

@KaseiJin,

It might be good to put out a general working definition for the concept 'inspired,' or 'supernatural superintendence.' For this thread, I'll use the consensus of the following three positions:

[INDENT]My own definition of biblical inspiration is that it is God's superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded, without error, His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs.[/INDENT]①

[INDENT]All that is necessary to be held is, that the sacred writers [of OT and NT canonical documents which can be shown to have been extant at the time that 2 Tim 3:16 had been written were kept from error on those subjects which were matters of their own observation, or which pertained to memory; and that there were truths imparted to them directly by the Spirit of God, which they never could have arrived at by the unaided exercise of their own minds.[/INDENT]②

[INDENT]By 'breathing' [sic] on faithful men, God caused his sprit, or active force, to become operative upon them and directed what he wanted recorded. . . Jehovah's active force put the thoughts into the writer's mind and, in certain instances, allowed him to express the divine thought in his own words.[/INDENT]③

From the fundamentalist-like sects of Christianity especially (and in a way, even the Vatican), one more often first proof text for the Bible's inspiration is exactly that mentioned above in one of the quotes, viz. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17. That passage can be understood as follows:

[INDENT]a. Every (or All) scripture(s) inspired by god is(are) also good for . . . every good work.[/INDENT]

[INDENT]b. Every (or All) scripture(s) is(are) inspired by god and good for . . . every good work.[/INDENT]

The exemplar expressed in our recension today, had more likely been an edited version. Taking the likely time of having been penned as being around the year 64/65, and the immediate context within which it falls--along with known historical setting for Christian activity at that time--it is clear that the author had been talking about the LXX (in some form or another)④.

The gist which would have been intended to have been communicated to that individual recipient (Timothy), as seen from the overall and immediate context makes it clear that only certain works of the LXX had been the subject. No document written after 64/65 could have been, and not even that very letter. In light of other details (and to make things short here), that passage is no proof text for the claim that the Bible is inspired by the god-model it describes/prescribes.

① New International Version, 1994 ed.; edited by Charles C. Rye; p 2013

② Barnes Notes on the New Testament, London ed. by Albert Barnes; 1982 printing; p 1180

③ Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 1; Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1988; pp 309-310

④ We should not think that most copies of LXX or 'books' of it were all in codex form--there would still mostly have been notes and scrolls. Also we have the Alexandrian canon, Palestinian canon, Sumarian Canon, and the Babylonian canon of LXX. (Paul's troupe would most likely have used the Palestinian.)

@KaseiJin,

A quick note before jumping into this thread:

The date of 2 Timothy being in the 60's depends on whether or not you accept Paul as the actually author of the text. Paul is traditionally attributed with writing the document, however, many modern scholars debate this and place the writing at around 130-150CE.

@Didymos Thomas,

As I understand it, fundamentalists and most conservative evangelicals and conservative catholics hold to a very strict position concerning inspiration: "verbal plenary" meaning every word of the autographs (originally penned, though some even argue for this with respect to specific translations), and "inerrancy," meaning absolutely no errors. I think that position is scadalous, heretical, and untenable, and I doubt anyone in this forum would argue for it. But there are other ways to understand "inspiration," many of which recognize the divine source of the writings, and the role of inspired literature in the universal human quest for enlightenment.

@Dichanthelium,

Both you gentlemen (and do forgive me if I have erred here, I'm just going by the usernames) have put some important material on the table. I think it will be good to keep the essence of these points in mind as we go.

Yes, I understand your point there, Didymos Thomas (and with your permission, may I use DT to address you?). I am not familiar with the details in the arguments against Paul's having been neither the direct, nor indirect, author of that document--other than that the exemplar behind our recensions had obviously been edited. I would appreciate any light you may be able to share on that point.

My present take is that both letters have a second hand in them, and that while the likelihood that our Paul had been the general source of a pre-document, is fair enough, I wouldn't go placing any bets on it.

I would like to mention, however, that by at least working with 2 Timothy under the assumption that it is more directly from Paul (but with some editing), and had been originally penned around that time, it is easier to discuss with those who more insistantly maintain that the document is Paul's hand (or through dictation). The essence that I see in your point, is that we do need to be careful, and gather as much data as we can before even nearing an finalizing of understanding on these texts.

I feel that I understand your point, Dichanthelium. For the purpose of this thread (for now, at least, let's say) I would hope to leave our 'working definition' of inspired as a kind of average blob that we would see if we were to put those above three assertions on five-point graphs and then overlay them. I am familar with (and I'll use the word 'believers' here to simply delineate a general catagory) believers who are of the understanding that the Bible is inspired in a very general way, contains errors in some areas, yet who would not give even that credit to any non-canonical documents.

One thing that I do hope to demonstrate fairly enough in this thread, is that we will come to a point where at we will have to substantiate the entity being pointed to with the word 'divine.' Now--I'm quite sure--would be too early in the thread.

Another passage which is used by fundamentalist type Christians to support the assertion that the Bible is inspired is 2 Peter 3:15, 16. Here again we have a document which can be seen as having been penned somewhat later than the disciple Peter's lifespan; thus we will have two ways to see the intention in the passage in question.

I will let this be enough for this post, and will get back with a bit of an explanation on 2 Peter 3:15,16. Here I will just say that the essence of what I see in your point, is that we will have to pay attention to 1) just what 'layers' of understanding on the term 'inspiration' may be out there, and 2) just what might be the best understanding of what makes an 'error.'

Nice input there guys !

@KaseiJin,

Another key proof-text used by those Christians who argue the inspiration of the canonical texts (in that manner that we are presently holding for this thread) is that of 2 Peter 3:15,16--esp. 16.

Again, this document is heavily contested① as to authorship, and my understanding is that the likelihood that the autograph had come from the disciple Peter himself, is very slim. Again, however, if we were to hold, for the sake of argument, that the letter had come from Peter, or his immediate troupe, we can still see how it comes to play in formulating the conclusion that the Bible is not inspired as considered by fundamentalists.

The best thing to do, for any who wish to follow along carefully, would be to check out the running context in that work, so that the intended idea to be communicated can be better visualized. I will provide the immediate lines below:

[INDENT]15 . . . Paul wrote to you . . . 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.[/INDENT]②

The New American Standard (1977) gives us '. . . which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction' in verse 16.

The key wording is that of 'the other scriptures,' or 'the rest of the Scriptures.' It is posited that the writer thus understands Paul's letters to the several congregations scattered about as being in the same class as the scriptures--the LXX. (which the writer considers inspired 1:19-21) In other words, he Tanakh is inspired by YHWH, and Paul's letters were inspired by YHWH. Nestle-Aland's 27th ed (1993) [hereafter N/A 27] is in agreement with Wescott and Hort, as well as Griesbach, and has tas loipas graphas (the remaining; the rest of; the others③) there.

The outline of the contextual deveopment is a bit long, and so I'll jump over it here, and go to the conclusion (if any one would like to see it anyway, I'll present it upon request, however). The use of tas loipas requires a universal set, but does not require both mentioned members to be equal in inherent quality. Therefore here, while the writer does put the LXX and Paul's letters in a single class, the overall context (along with some broader points) more likely renders that class (universal set) as being 'documents of a religious bearing known to, or used by, the direct and immediate audience.

This passage, then, will be seen to not support the understanding that the author of that document understood Paul's letters as being 'inspired' in the same way as, and a continuation of, the LXX. The qualification of Paul's writings had been given as simply 'god-given wisdom,' and nothing more.

① The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170) doubts it; Irenaeus of Asia Minor (c.180) includes it (as canon); Clement of Alexandria (c. 190) makes no mention of it; Tertullian of N. Africa (c. 207) makes no mention of it.

② NRSV with Apopcrypha; 1989, OUP

③ 'The others' is the weaker translation here because there is another word which better carries that notion, and due to contextual setting. Also, maintaining as closely as realistically reasonable, to 'one meaning assignment,' we find the former candidates preferable.

@KaseiJin,

Hmmm I am a bit confused as to what the OP is trying to accomplish.

Is the OP aiming to disprove Biblical inerrancy or show no 'reason' to believe in Biblical inerrancy. If the latter maybe a definition of 'reason' in this context is important?

@click here,

click here wrote:

Hmmm I am a bit confused as to what the OP is trying to accomplish.

Is the OP aiming to disprove Biblical inerrancy or show no 'reason' to believe in Biblical inerrancy. If the latter maybe a definition of 'reason' in this context is important?

I think first you should show your true beliefs or another shadow boxing fight will result.Is it infallible, the true word of god or not?

@xris,

KaseiJin wrote:

Yes, I understand your point there, Didymos Thomas (and with your permission, may I use DT to address you?). I am not familiar with the details in the arguments against Paul's having been neither the direct, nor indirect, author of that document--other than that the exemplar behind our recensions had obviously been edited. I would appreciate any light you may be able to share on that point.

DT works for me. Smile

I'm not terribly familiar with the details of the argument either; I'm just aware of the debate.

KaseiJin wrote:

My present take is that both letters have a second hand in them, and that while the likelihood that our Paul had been the general source of a pre-document, is fair enough, I wouldn't go placing any bets on it.

As I understand it, the idea that Paul is the author is simply the traditional account. Personally, I would like to see some evidence of his authorship before I accept the matter from an historical perspective. Spiritually, the question of the actual author seems irrelevant.

KaseiJin wrote:

I would like to mention, however, that by at least working with 2 Timothy under the assumption that it is more directly from Paul (but with some editing), and had been originally penned around that time, it is easier to discuss with those who more insistantly maintain that the document is Paul's hand (or through dictation). The essence that I see in your point, is that we do need to be careful, and gather as much data as we can before even nearing an finalizing of understanding on these texts.

A pragmatic stance to take. When discussing the spiritual teachings, whether or not it was Paul or some other writer doesn't make any difference; the authorship question is a purely historical concern. But, as some people do place spiritual importance upon the historical record, I think we can investigate the spiritual significance and grant, for the sake of discussion, the idea that Paul did write the letters.

@KaseiJin,

A few things here, before getting back later:

Thanks DT; and of course KJ is fine for me--easier to type.

click here, I think it's good that you did raise that question. while (being candid here) I feel (note: feel as in opposition to reason/think) that the OP (as in post) should have been clear enough, I do realize that my wording is heavy at times. I apologize for that.

I envisage this thread as being a multi-layered one: a number of things are happening pretty much simultaneously. For one, I do enjoy textual criticism and discussion related to that field (something that I have found very skimpy on internet forums {the few I have participated in, at least}). Therefore in part, this thread, I would (perhaps wishfully) like to imagine as a kind of furtherance of 'public education'--if you will.

Also, I see this as an arena to discuss and debate in an academical manner (no real need to pressure a point of understanding on any who may not fully agree, nor convince any of any shortcoming in knowledge/insight/practical logic, or so on). Along this line, I too look forward to perhaps learning something new. Even though I have (almost a past perfect now [had]) spent some 17 plus years in biblical studies, there is still stuff out there (I'm sure) that I haven't yet come across.

Please do allow me, therefore, to present a few truths that may help (I hope, at least). I consider myself a Non-theist agnostic, although this position was a gradual shift from being a believer. (My mother's father was a circuit minister, my father a lay minister, and I grew up in the Methodist tradition, etc. etc.)

There is of course error in the documents which have been stuck together to make our Bible of today, just as there is error any many older 'world-views.' I would argue that to prove that there is error (and I plan to distinguish that term by description and definition as I go) in any ancient document's claims, or statements, would be to show that application of reason (in the sense of practical and logical thought processes) from the position of the acquired, empirical knowledge base we have today, towards those documents, determines that error.

Also, I am working within a pragmatic range--and I will fully admit that this style of mine quite dampens any 'philosophical taste.' I guess I should firstly apologize for that, and hope that it will be accepted.

Feel free to question, in any manner, any points. Thanks for following along. KJ

@KaseiJin,

Hmmm I read over it again as well as subsequent posts and am still a bit confused as to what your end goal is. Are we talking simply about Biblical inspiration? or Biblical innerancy? How they both relate? If innerancy, are you referring to there being errors in modern day translations? or the original texts?

I think to claim innerancy in modern texts is asking to much. Take for example Luke 3:36

the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad,

Then look at Genesis 11:12

[INDENT]"When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah."
[/INDENT]John Gill says:

[INDENT]"This Cainan is not mentioned by Moses in Ge 11:12 nor has he ever appeared in any Hebrew copy of the Old Testament, nor in the Samaritan version, nor in the Targum; nor is he mentioned by Josephus, nor in 1Ch 1:24 where the genealogy is repeated; nor is it in Beza's most ancient Greek copy of Luke: it indeed stands in the present copies of the Septuagint, but was not originally there; and therefore could not be taken by Luke from thence, but seems to be owing to some early negligent transcriber of Luke's Gospel, and since put into the Septuagint to give it authority: I say "early", because it is in many Greek copies, and in the Vulgate Latin, and all the Oriental versions, even in the Syriac, the oldest of them; but ought not to stand neither in the text, nor in any version: for certain it is, there never was such a Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, for Salah was his son; and with him the next words should be connected"

[/INDENT]Some will say that "son of" or "begot" didn't mean the direct preceding child of the said father. I think that with Shelah being 35 and the lack of documentation in other older sources would show this to be a modern day transliterated error.

So are we talking about modern day error or original document error?

@click here,

click here;60117 wrote:

Hmmm I read over it again as well as subsequent posts and am still a bit confused as to what your end goal is. Are we talking simply about Biblical inspiration? or Biblical innerancy? How they both relate? If innerancy, are you referring to there being errors in modern day translations? or the original texts? . . .So are we talking about modern day error or original document error?

Nice to hear from you again, click here. I appreciate your efforts to fine tune. Let's see if I can help . . .

Most often, the term 'biblical texts' will refer to original language documents and/or translations (harmonies, or related writings bearing on canonical documents) into other languages such as Koine Greek, Latin, Syriac, Aramaic, Coptic, or Arabic, and this will usually run up to about the Middle Ages, or so. Therefore, we would not really be looking at present day translations--although that will come into play.

Of the several things going at one time, one of them is the matter of inspiration--and I am holding that to be of the original autographs. We have no original autographs, and very little historical record of any writing activities by scribes prior to the turn of the first century CE. We can fairly trust, however, that the exemplars that have come down to us, have fairly well preserved the autographs, and with a very minor degree of textual difficulties that would lead to drastic changes in understanding. Thus we would not (especially for this thread) be holding anything but the autographs to be candidates for supernatural superintendence, and yet would be checking for that through our exemplars (and their translations into English) since mainstream fundamentalistic Christian sects hold that these exemplars would have been kept true by the same supernatual superintendece (YHWH/Trinity model) that had 'created' the original autographs.

As briefly touched on in my #5 post, we will find that there are different ideas of inspiration, and some are more related to what DT may be getting at when talking about the spiritual elements of the content--thus not (as the stricter forms do) disallowing for even autographical error to some extent. For now, in this thread, I am answering to the average of the stricter forms, which I have provided three witnesses to in my second post. On down the road, I think we'd shift out of that gear, and into the more general one.

Therefore for now, this thread is looking at internal (I'm looking at original language recensions) evidence towards any document's evidencing self-claims to inspiration, or claims for other document's having been composed through inspiration, or not. In that process, natural error, historical error, and intellectual error will be looked at (again, using original tongue documents as much as possible, and not only canonical ones) and applied towards a conclusion.

Also, rather than simply make a statement, then defend it (a type of 'top-down' defense) I am working from the bottom up, so as to reach a conclusive statement. For that reason also, it may be unclear--but I'd like to think, funner.

Thanks for that point-in-case study there. I'll check some old journals and see if I can get any further information on it ! Nice job !:a-ok:

@KaseiJin,

Hi

Can we prove that they were not inspired by God after all the might have been,The writers might have thought they were penning down earthly wisdom , but unknown to then God controlled their pens from time to time

Maybe this is the reason for beautiful truths we find in the bible and a human idea of god as a colossal being of war

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

Hi

Can we prove that they were not inspired by God after all the might have been,The writers might have thought they were penning down earthly wisdom , but unknown to then God controlled their pens from time to time

Maybe this is the reason for beautiful truths we find in the bible and a human idea of god as a colossal being of war

So what about the nasty bits, the violence against non believers, the condemnation to eternal hell is that penned by god?Sorry Alan you cant be selective.

@KaseiJin,

hmmm... if we want to make a strong case for or against inspiration then I think inerrancy must be tackled first.

I can't imagine inerrancy or errancy being justified on anything but faith (or hunch if you feel that suits your better). That is because to prove inerrancy by using a select verse in the Bible one must presuppose the Bibles inerrancy. Yet to prove an error in the Bible one must have access to original transcripts as well as a definition of error to build off of. So I think its fair to say that inerrancy or errancy can not be proven. So then a discussion based on inspiration with an analysis of the text as being a large factor must be done with preconceived assumptions. Using preconceived assumptions will only lead you to a possible point of view. I'm speaking generally but just trying to address various things that should be taken into account.

Sure the only thing we can go from us what we have, so let's do it while keeping the knowledge of unknowns in mind.

@click here,

Theological academia that tries to bring credibility to scriptures that have no value in any real terms, referring to previous scriptures as if it collaborated each of them . Unsubstatiated historic facts to bring respectability to myths and legends.
I have more proof of king Arthur and Robin Hood than any gospel stories.
When will men of the book stop making these outrageous claims as if the book was gods factual manual to be analysed with intellectual integrity.

@xris,

xris wrote:

Theological academia that tries to bring credibility to scriptures that have no value in any real terms, referring to previous scriptures as if it collaborated each of them . Unsubstatiated historic facts to bring respectability to myths and legends.
I have more proof of king Arthur and Robin Hood than any gospel stories.
When will men of the book stop making these outrageous claims as if the book was gods factual manual to be analysed with intellectual integrity.

Well that was quite a mouth full.

It almost sounds like your irritated at something.

Nonetheless that was a very general post and I'd be curious as to what, if you were, specifically referring to something individually or just making a general statement.

What are you referring to you when you say 'gospel stories'. I'd assume you refer to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? So your saying you have other sources that provide more evidence of Robin Hood then there is evidences that detail that which is depicted in the 4 books mentioned?

@click here,

click here wrote:

Well that was quite a mouth full.

It almost sounds like your irritated at something.

Nonetheless that was a very general post and I'd be curious as to what, if you were, specifically referring to something individually or just making a general statement.

What are you referring to you when you say 'gospel stories'. I'd assume you refer to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? So your saying you have other sources that provide more evidence of Robin Hood then there is evidences that detail that which is depicted in the 4 books mentioned?

Irritated yes.gospels yes.I watch and listen to the academic debate or debates on a book that has not a scratch of historic evidence and silly details are examined as if it sheds light on some unknown truth.Men of very high intelligence fail to realise that they are debating details of fiction as if they were facts.Most of the time i leave it to them realising this closed circle could not ever consider the ultimate truth as it would make their world crumble.

@KaseiJin,

Firstly, I must apologize for allowing this thread to get so far behind. Most unfortunately, it will occasionally happen from time to time--althought I do tend to pursure this presentation/discussion.

xris, I do feel that I can understand your frustration. At the same time, there is a reason, a clear and specific reason for much (not all maybe) of this style of, let's say, 'positioning' in academical debate and discussion in this field. If we were to take the likes of Morton Smith's Secret Mark, for example, I have seen the debate go back and forth over the reliability of any such text, over the historicity of it, over the charges against Smith for academical foul play, and so forth and so on.

We can take the likes of the Gospel of Judas, and it's translation (the National Geographic take on it had been rushed...those asked to do it, even, felt kind of straitjacketed. A better translation came out later...but was not made so public at all. But even if we take matters on canonical texts, arguments over the Western type versus the Alexandrian type, and the degrees of influence over our present exemplars, and so on, we will find that scholars tend to take a position on the concept that something is held to be so--whatever that may be--so to one who is not familiar with this argumentation-presenting positioning, may get the idea that too much of something is being taken for granted. Trust me though (as I have been studying in this field for a good long while now, and member of the Society of Biblical Literature going on some 9 years now) when I say, that is usually not the case.

I am of the opinion and understanding and convincment that we can, indeed, come to this biblical textual matter, and look into it, study and investigate it, with the minimum of prior assumptions, and reach a reasonable, logical, honest and fair conclusion to the higher degree. Therefore, the opening of the first sentence in Alan's post above, is most correct in attitude--whether he had intended that or not. We approach all the texts in this field, both canoncial and not, with the mind that we do not know anything about them in the first instance. Can we come to discover that there is anything inspired about them (when, especially, we hold that term to be defined and described as I have done for this thread)? To do that, we must first look.

Click here's post, therefore, also makes a good point. To really do that, we're gonna have to have access to texts in the original tongues, and are going to have to work at making good cross-comparisons/referencing between texts and translations (for example the Greek LXX version of Isaiah, versus the Hebrew version, and Jerome's Latin version (since he is said to have worked from Hebrew texts of his day, rather than the Greek LXX).

I'll be back and will continue where I left off, and will always try to keep this going. Please do forgive me when I get behind. Thanks. I appreciate the thoughts, comments, and discussion above. KJ

@xris,

xris wrote:

So what about the nasty bits, the violence against non believers, the condemnation to eternal hell is that penned by god?Sorry Alan you cant be selective.

But xris maybe god in desperation attemted to bring some reason and truth into this book, he knew it would be read by a huge segment of humanity. Thus to me, we should take out of it what is good and true and spew out what is distastful and inhuman

I do see widom , love and truth in the bible

Gosh!! yes xris those nasty bits really really trouble me, Read the appalling account of genocide in the Book of Numbers chapter 31 and you will see dear old Moses commiting crimes that Adolf Hitler would have been proud of

Maybe here god could not get his voice or opinion into the picture and Moses went ahead with these hiddeious crimes in the name of YAHWEH

The question therefore, begs, is yahweh really Almighty God?

Philosophy Forum
» Christianity
» Biblical Texts: explication & discussion

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Biblical Texts: explication & discussion

Quick Links

My Account

able2know