1
   

The esetoric and literals of the bible

 
 
queen annie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 08:07 pm
thunder_runner32 wrote:
Plus, you can get a pretty good general understanding....i.e. the golden rule.


that's right, baaaybe...

LOVELOVELOVELOVE


Groovy. Cool
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 03:06 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
You think their moral development was still in the pits? Ok, I will need a bit of clarification on that. I am not quite sure what you mean. So are you saying the ones that "wrote" the Bible were not smart enough to realize that someon would think that God is coming off a bit harsh? You think they were stupid? I guess I need a bit more from you on that too.


No, not stupid, UNKNOWLEDGEABLE. They did not have written language yet. They had zero knowledge of the sort of information that we take for granted. Lightning, thunder, earthquakes, Sun, moon and stars, disease, weather patterns all were great mysteries. Ergo the need for a God to explain it all.

As for their moral development still being in the pits, we have traveled this road before. Human morality has been in constant flux since humans first started to band together. It is a matter of what works. Just look at the two hundred years. Slavery was once acceptable, now it is not. Women's suffrage once was not acceptable. Now it is. Segragation once was acceptable. Now it is not. In 1900 it was shameful for a woman to show her ankles. And yes, even homosexuality is not the taboo it once was. How can one be so blind as to not see that the morality of the Bible is not only antiquated. but atrocious.

Momma Angel wrote:
Mesquite, God is so pure you cannot look upon His face and live. Honestly, can you comprehend that? I can't fully comprehend that. So, if He is that perfect don't you think any sin to Him will be just the opposite of what He is? In my mind most definitely telling a lie comes nowhere close to being as bad a killing someone. But, that's MY mind. I don't think God looks at it that way. He has thinkgs He calls sins and things He calls abominations.

God knows everything. He knew whether or not the children of those people would grow up to be like their parents or not. I do not. Yes, it sounds like really unfair punishment to MY mind. But, again, not to God.

There are indeed abominations described in the Bible. It is sad, very sad that an adult in 2006 would still be embracing and excusing such passages.

Momma Angel wrote:
And as to God sanctioning paedophilia, well, that needs a bit more explanation from you on exactly what you mean.

Moses in Numbers 31: wrote:
31 And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.
32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,
33 And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,
34 And threescore and one thousand asses,
35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

MA, It seems pretty obvious from the above that as commanded by God, the virgin women/children were caught prey to be treated as booty and divvied up. Can you even picture the logistics of determining which women/children met the criteria?

Momma Angel wrote:
Gods laws are meant for everyone. Not everyone accepts that. God's punishment often brought His people back to Him. Look at the Israelites when they left Egypt. Didn't got punish the ones that were worshipping the golden calf? Didn't God also punish coming generations because of the iniquity of the Israelites in the desert?

Jehovah was the god of the Hebrews by the Hebrews for the Hebrews. Other peoples were for plundering, enslaving, killing, and let's not forget as a source of young virgins.


Momma Angel wrote:
mesquite wrote:
I can remember when you tried to convince me that "nothing changed" between the old and new testaments. here[/b] . That takes one heck of a stretch to compare the vengeful psychopathic war God of the OT to the loving, forgiving words of Jesus and say they are the same.


Actually, it doesn't take a stretch at all. It only takes a leap of faith.

Ah, the old standby, when logic reason and evidence fail there is always faith. If it works for you, fine, but it is a pitiful way to support your argument.

Momma Angel wrote:
mesquite wrote:
MA, I have NO trouble understanding this. It is most obvious to me that the hebrew war god was concocted by a superstitious, unknowledgeable ancient civilization. Jehovah was a relatively new god to humanity at the time, being pretty much exclusive to his "chosen people", and they did not then or now go about doing much proselytizing to gain converts. According to this barbaric tribe of Hebrews the whole world was 'heathen and pagan' and in severe need of genocidal killing, except of course their virgin children, who did have some value after all.


It's obvious to me that in the Old Testament there was God and man and law. You break the law, you get punished.

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ was born, lived, was crucified, died, was buried and resurrected for the forgiveness of sins. It's obvious to me in the New Testament the covenant with God is all about love and forgiveness.

Can you imagine how hard it might have been to find converts at the time in the Old Testament? The thing is, they didn't have Jesus at the time. They didn't have the love and forgiveness like Christ preached. They had God, man and the law. Yet, Christianity lives on. (Questioner, now, I see your point on that one! :wink: )

Of course it was hard to find converts. That is why Paul decided to chuck all of those laws that applied to Jews. He was trying to build a church! Circumcision is WHAT? Duh. They also didn't have instant salvation no matter what. What a marketing idea that was.

Oh and the continual references to the secret pm with Q is childish and rude to not only Q but the rest of us.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 03:12 pm
Mesquite,

They didn't have a written language yet? You think morals are progressing. I don't. So, we can agree to disagree on this point.

It says women that have not known man. WOMEN. Not children, WOMEN.

I was not trying to be rude about anything, Mesquite. I really wasn't. I am sorry if it appeared that way.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 03:44 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Mesquite,

They didn't have a written language yet? You think morals are progressing. I don't. So, we can agree to disagree on this point.

It says women that have not known man. WOMEN. Not children, WOMEN.

I was not trying to be rude about anything, Mesquite. I really wasn't. I am sorry if it appeared that way.


MA, playing dumb does not become you.
Numbers 31:
Quote:
17. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


Yes, I KNOW morals are progressing. So, according to you we should backtrack to the days when women were covered from head to foot, when slaves were kept, when racial segregation was the law, when women were not allowed to vote?

Edit: For some comparative translations of Numbers 31:18 click here[/u] lest there be any doubt as to the meaning of that passage.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 06:46 pm
mesquite wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
Mesquite,

They didn't have a written language yet? You think morals are progressing. I don't. So, we can agree to disagree on this point.

It says women that have not known man. WOMEN. Not children, WOMEN.

I was not trying to be rude about anything, Mesquite. I really wasn't. I am sorry if it appeared that way.


MA, playing dumb does not become you.
Numbers 31:
Quote:
17. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


Yes, I KNOW morals are progressing. So, according to you we should backtrack to the days when women were covered from head to foot, when slaves were kept, when racial segregation was the law, when women were not allowed to vote?

Edit: For some comparative translations of Numbers 31:18 click here[/u] lest there be any doubt as to the meaning of that passage.



Mesquite,

Do you know positively that they had no written language? Can you give me some information on this?

I don't know how old the women children they were talking about were. Perhaps if you can come up with something that gives their age it might be helpful. Not one of those verses gives any indication of any age.

I have only stated I don't think abortion should be legal and neither should same sex marriage. Those are a long way from equating with racial segregation and women voting, and a woman being covered from head to foot.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 09:24 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Mesquite,

Do you know positively that they had no written language? Can you give me some information on this?
[/b]

No I do not know that and I should not have put my foot in my mouth. It would have been more accurate had I said they had only a primitive written language. I apologize for that.
Momma Angel wrote:
I don't know how old the women children they were talking about were. Perhaps if you can come up with something that gives their age it might be helpful. Not one of those verses gives any indication of any age.[/b]

Well the accounting does say that there were 32000 women children captives that had not known a man by lying with him. I think we can assume from a normal population distribution that the range would have been from infants to some past puberty. Does the exact age make all that much difference?
Main Entry: pe·do·phil·ia
Pronunciation: "pEd-&-'fil-E-&, "ped-
Variant: or chiefly British pae·do·phil·ia /"pEd-/
Function: noun
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object

Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Momma Angel wrote:
I have only stated I don't think abortion should be legal and neither should same sex marriage. Those are a long way from equating with racial segregation and women voting, and a woman being covered from head to foot.


Actually in the context of this current exchange you said this
Momma Angel wrote:
You think morals are progressing. I don't. So, we can agree to disagree on this point.


in response to this
mesquite wrote:
Human morality has been in constant flux since humans first started to band together. It is a matter of what works. Just look at the last two hundred years. Slavery was once acceptable, now it is not. Women's suffrage once was not acceptable. Now it is. Segregation once was acceptable. Now it is not. In 1900 it was shameful for a woman to show her ankles. And yes, even homosexuality is not the taboo it once was. How can one be so blind as to not see that the morality of the Bible is not only antiquated. but atrocious.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 09:41 pm
mesquite wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
Mesquite,

Do you know positively that they had no written language? Can you give me some information on this?
[/b]

No I do not know that and I should not have put my foot in my mouth. It would have been more accurate had I said they had only a primitive written language. I apologize for that.

No problem. No harm done.

Momma Angel wrote:
I don't know how old the women children they were talking about were. Perhaps if you can come up with something that gives their age it might be helpful. Not one of those verses gives any indication of any age.[/b]

Well the accounting does say that there were 32000 women children captives that had not known a man by lying with him. I think we can assume from a normal population distribution that the range would have been from infants to some past puberty. Does the exact age make all that much difference?
Main Entry: pe·do·phil·ia
Pronunciation: "pEd-&-'fil-E-&, "ped-
Variant: or chiefly British pae·do·phil·ia /"pEd-/
Function: noun
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object

Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Okay, I am doing research into this. I think you bring up a pretty good question here and I don't have anywhere near enough knowledge or information on it to answer with any kind of validity. So, I will get back to you on this one.

Momma Angel wrote:
I have only stated I don't think abortion should be legal and neither should same sex marriage. Those are a long way from equating with racial segregation and women voting, and a woman being covered from head to foot.


Actually in the context of this current exchange you said this
Momma Angel wrote:
You think morals are progressing. I don't. So, we can agree to disagree on this point.


in response to this
mesquite wrote:
Human morality has been in constant flux since humans first started to band together. It is a matter of what works. Just look at the last two hundred years. Slavery was once acceptable, now it is not. Women's suffrage once was not acceptable. Now it is. Segregation once was acceptable. Now it is not. In 1900 it was shameful for a woman to show her ankles. And yes, even homosexuality is not the taboo it once was. How can one be so blind as to not see that the morality of the Bible is not only antiquated. but atrocious.

Like I said, we have to agree to disagree on this. I do not believe God's laws about these things change. I believe mankind changes the rules so he can do what he wants to do. God is perfect. Man is not. Just because something is accepted in society today it does not mean that it is okay in God's eyes. So, let's just agree to disagree on this point, ok?
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 01:51 pm
The morality of the bible is atrocious?! Oh really? So loving your neighbor is atrocious...ok...????

The fact is society was very different back then, but there are moral constants that can be applied to every age of man. Every generation thinks that they have grown out of the need for God or morals and we never learn any better.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 06:28 pm
thunder_runner32 wrote:
The morality of the bible is atrocious?! Oh really? So loving your neighbor is atrocious...ok...????


Strawman. loving your neighbor is not the example I provided.

a·tro·cious Audio pronunciation of "atrocious" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-trshs)
adj.

1. Extremely evil or cruel; monstrous: an atrocious crime.
2. Exceptionally bad; abominable: atrocious decor; atrocious behavior.

Yes, that is an appropriate adjective for the treatment of the Midianites as just one of many examples.

thunder_runner32 wrote:
The fact is society was very different back then, but there are moral constants that can be applied to every age of man. Every generation thinks that they have grown out of the need for God or morals and we never learn any better.


In case you do not realize it , you make my point by noting that society was very different back then. The Bible's moral directives are merely reflections of the civilizations that spawned them. I would be very interested in hearing your formula for how to pick and choose which biblical directive is applicable today.

Are you suggesting that a directive to kill all of the male little ones and all of the females that are not virgins is anything other than abominable? It never ceases to amaze me that the same folks that go bananas over terminating even a short term pregnancy can completey dismiss such wholesale slaughter as depicted in Numbers 31.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 06:35 pm
mesquite wrote:
thunder_runner32 wrote:
The morality of the bible is atrocious?! Oh really? So loving your neighbor is atrocious...ok...????


Strawman. loving your neighbor is not the example I provided.

a·tro·cious Audio pronunciation of "atrocious" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-trshs)
adj.

1. Extremely evil or cruel; monstrous: an atrocious crime.
2. Exceptionally bad; abominable: atrocious decor; atrocious behavior.

Yes, that is an appropriate adjective for the treatment of the Midianites as just one of many examples.

thunder_runner32 wrote:
The fact is society was very different back then, but there are moral constants that can be applied to every age of man. Every generation thinks that they have grown out of the need for God or morals and we never learn any better.


In case you do not realize it , you make my point by noting that society was very different back then. The Bible's moral directives are merely reflections of the civilizations that spawned them.

Are you suggesting that a directive to kill all of the male little ones and all of the female s that are not virgins is anything other than abominable? It never ceases to amaze me that the same folks that go bananas over terminating even a short term pregnancy can completey dismiss such wholesale slaughter as depicted in Numbers 31.

Mesquite,

I don't think any of us have completely dismissed what happened in Numbers 31. I think I explained very well what I thought about it. In my human mind, yes, it sounds pretty bad. But, in respect to God's perfection and Holiness is it atrocious to Him?

Let me put it to you this way. If God sees all sins as having the same importance or value, if you will, then would telling 6,000,000 lies be any different to God than killing 6,000,000 people, such as Hitler did? To you and I and I am sure the rest of the world this doesn't seem to compare by any stretch of the imagination, does it? But, if all sin is the same to God, then what?
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 08:48 pm
Quote:

Let me put it to you this way. If God sees all sins as having the same importance or value, if you will, then would telling 6,000,000 lies be any different to God than killing 6,000,000 people, such as Hitler did? To you and I and I am sure the rest of the world this doesn't seem to compare by any stretch of the imagination, does it? But, if all sin is the same to God, then what?

Do you honestly not see why that sort of thinking is dangerous and unhealthy? By putting all 'biblical sin' together on the same level you are in effect devaluing the atrocity of murder, rape, and all the other harmful behaviors. This is the sort of thinking that was/is probably used in part to justify all the mass murdering and wholesale brutality the religion has inspired over the centuries.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 08:51 pm
Doktor S wrote:
Quote:

Let me put it to you this way. If God sees all sins as having the same importance or value, if you will, then would telling 6,000,000 lies be any different to God than killing 6,000,000 people, such as Hitler did? To you and I and I am sure the rest of the world this doesn't seem to compare by any stretch of the imagination, does it? But, if all sin is the same to God, then what?

Do you honestly not see why that sort of thinking is dangerous and unhealthy? By putting all 'biblical sin' together on the same level you are in effect devaluing the atrocity of murder, rape, and all the other harmful behaviors. This is the sort of thinking that was/is probably used in part to justify all the mass murdering and wholesale brutality the religion has inspired over the centuries.

That may be your opinion, Doktor S. But, what if it is the way God looks at it? Do you know if He does or not for sure? I don't. :wink:
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 09:50 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Mesquite,

I don't think any of us have completely dismissed what happened in Numbers 31. I think I explained very well what I thought about it. In my human mind, yes, it sounds pretty bad. But, in respect to God's perfection and Holiness is it atrocious to Him?

You explained it this way
Momma Angel wrote:
These were evil people God was dealing with. He knew what was in their hearts. He knew their children would grow up doing the exact same thing as their parents, and I would guess on a grander scale.

It was God and the laws He gave men to follow in the Old Testament. The punishment was see ya! Well, they knew that. They were warned. They chose to continue in their wicked ways.

I said before and I say again that it is sad, very sad that an adult in 2006 would still be embracing and excusing such passages.
Momma Angel wrote:
Let me put it to you this way. If God sees all sins as having the same importance or value, if you will, then would telling 6,000,000 lies be any different to God than killing 6,000,000 people, such as Hitler did? To you and I and I am sure the rest of the world this doesn't seem to compare by any stretch of the imagination, does it? But, if all sin is the same to God, then what?

Then what? How about time to look for a new imaginary friend.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 09:59 pm
mesquite wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
Mesquite,

I don't think any of us have completely dismissed what happened in Numbers 31. I think I explained very well what I thought about it. In my human mind, yes, it sounds pretty bad. But, in respect to God's perfection and Holiness is it atrocious to Him?

You explained it this way
Momma Angel wrote:
These were evil people God was dealing with. He knew what was in their hearts. He knew their children would grow up doing the exact same thing as their parents, and I would guess on a grander scale.

It was God and the laws He gave men to follow in the Old Testament. The punishment was see ya! Well, they knew that. They were warned. They chose to continue in their wicked ways.


I said before and I say again that it is sad, very sad that an adult in 2006 would still be embracing and excusing such passages.

I need excuse nothing of or for God. I am sorry that you feel the way you do but you are entitled to your opinions and I respect that.

Momma Angel wrote:
Let me put it to you this way. If God sees all sins as having the same importance or value, if you will, then would telling 6,000,000 lies be any different to God than killing 6,000,000 people, such as Hitler did? To you and I and I am sure the rest of the world this doesn't seem to compare by any stretch of the imagination, does it? But, if all sin is the same to God, then what?


Then what? How about time to look for a new imaginary friend.

Since He is not imaginary, no need to look for anything or anyone else. We just have to agree to disagree, Mesquite. There are things that you believe I would imagine that I don't agree with either. Just makes us different, nothing else.

0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 10:34 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Doktor S wrote:
Quote:

Let me put it to you this way. If God sees all sins as having the same importance or value, if you will, then would telling 6,000,000 lies be any different to God than killing 6,000,000 people, such as Hitler did? To you and I and I am sure the rest of the world this doesn't seem to compare by any stretch of the imagination, does it? But, if all sin is the same to God, then what?

Do you honestly not see why that sort of thinking is dangerous and unhealthy? By putting all 'biblical sin' together on the same level you are in effect devaluing the atrocity of murder, rape, and all the other harmful behaviors. This is the sort of thinking that was/is probably used in part to justify all the mass murdering and wholesale brutality the religion has inspired over the centuries.

That may be your opinion, Doktor S. But, what if it is the way God looks at it? Do you know if He does or not for sure? I don't. :wink:

Do you not comprehend what Dok said?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 10:45 pm
Mesquite,

Yes, I understand and comprehend what Doktor S said. I do not think you are comprehending what I am saying. I don't think we can come to any agreement on this because we have differing views of God. So, let's just agree to disagree :wink: .

I did not say God does see all sin on the same level, did I? Didn't I say if He does? If He does then to you and I it doesn't make much sense. But to Him it would.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 11:04 pm
This statement by Dok,

"By putting all 'biblical sin' together on the same level you are in effect devaluing the atrocity of murder, rape, and all the other harmful behaviors."

had nothing to do with how a god may see it. The Bible is touted to be a guide for it's followers. The impact is on how the followers see it.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 11:17 pm
mesquite wrote:
This statement by Dok,

"By putting all 'biblical sin' together on the same level you are in effect devaluing the atrocity of murder, rape, and all the other harmful behaviors."

had nothing to do with how a god may see it. The Bible is touted to be a guide for it's followers. The impact is on how the followers see it.


2Samuel 22: 31 ~ As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless.

Isaiah 55:7-9 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the LORD, And He will have mercy on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon. 8 " For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. 9 " For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Since we are speaking of God of the Old Testament here, it is perfectly reasonable to give verses from the Old Testament, don't you think? :wink:
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 11:56 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Since we are speaking of God of the Old Testament here, it is perfectly reasonable to give verses from the Old Testament, don't you think? :wink: [/b][/color]


Suits me. How about a summary. Details available upon request.

The following is a list of people murdered by God directly or through His command.

The entire population of the earth except for eight survivors (Genesis 7:23)
Every inhabitant of Sodom and Gomorrah except for one family (Genesis 19:24)
Every first born of Egypt (Exodus 12:29)
All the hosts of the Pharaoh, including the captains of 600 chariots (Exodus 14:27,28)
Amalek and his people (Exodus 17:11,16)
3,000 Israelites (Exodus 32:27)
250 Levite princes who had challenged the leadership of Moses (Numbers 16:1-40)
14,700 Jews in a plague who had rebelled against Moses following the killing of the princes (Numbers 16:41-49)
All the subjects of Og (Numbers 21:34, 35)
24,000 Israelites who lived with Moabite women (Numbers 25:4, 9)
All the males, kings, and non-virgin females of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7, 8)
The Ammonites (Deuteronomy 2:19-21)
The Horims (Deuteronomy 2:22)
All the citizens of Jericho, except for a prostitute and her family (Joshua 6)
12,000 citizens of Ai. Joshua hung the king on a tree. (Joshua 8:1-30)
All the people of Makkedah (Joshua 10:28)
All the people of Libnah (Joshua 10:29, 30)
All the people of Gezer (Joshua 10:33)
All the people of Lachish (Joshua 10:32)
All the people of Eglon (Joshua 10:34, 35)
All the people of Hebron (Joshua 10:36, 37)
All the inhabitants of 1 of the country of the hills, and of the south, and the vale, and of the springs and all their kings (Joshua 10:40)
All 31 kings and inhabitants of their countries, and south country, and the land of Goshen, and the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same from Mt. Halak to Mt. Hermon (Joshua 11:12, 16, 17, 12:24)
10,000 Moabites (Judges 3:29)
10,000 Perizzites and Canaanites (Judges 1:4)
600 Phillistines (Judges 3:31)
All of Sisera (Judges 4:16)
120,000 Midianites (Judges 8:10)
25,100 Benjaminites (Judges 20:35)
50,070 people of Bethshemesh (I Samuel 6:19)
All the Amalekites (I Samuel 15:3, 7)
The armies and five kings of the Amorites (Amos 3:2)
The Moabites and 22,000 Syrians (II Samuel 8:2, 5, 6, 14)
40,000 Syrian horsemen (II Samuel 10:18)
100,000 Syrian footmen, followed by 27,000 who are all crushed by a wall (I Kings 20:28, 29, 30)
42 children eaten by a bear (II Kings 2:23, 24)
185,000 Assyrians killed by an angel (II Kings 19:35)
10,000 Edomites, followed by 10,000 more whose killers brought them to the top of the rock, and cast them down from the top of the rock, that they were broken in pieces (II Chronicles 28)
120,000 Judeans (II Chronicles 28)
75,000 Persians (Esther 9:16)

Thanks to xingu
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1351936#1351936
0 Replies
 
lightfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 12:23 am
And momma say's.... "So what?"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/31/2024 at 05:54:41