What is Behemoth??
Comments
-
MarkSwaim said:
I have this resource but have had difficulty finding reference to Behemoth in the resource. Could you elaborate more exactly where it can be found (what chapter etc)?
Search for 'Behemot' without the h. In modern Hebrew, the tav (taw) is always 't', never 'th'.
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
[quote user=""]
We are left with one way to apply this scripture without God contradicting Himself. I agree with St Augustine who taught the sacrament is a symbolic, physical representation of a spiritual event.
Peace to you, Matthew (Gift of God!) *smile* And Joy!
Please, I would really appreciate your sharing where in St. Augustine he taught that "the sacrament is a symbolic, physical representation of a spiritual event."
Having studied St. Augustine, I find myself unaware of that teaching. Would really like to look that up!
Yours in Christ,
... Mel
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
AaronStevens said:
We don't literally eat and drink his body and blood, this is where the catholics get their eucharist etc stuff from, which is totally wrong.
Any self-respecting Catholic would begin a discussion of the real presence with the institution narrative of the last supper just as they would begin a discussion of the structure of Sunday worship with the story on the road to Emmaus followed by the heavenly liturgy in Revelation.
I am honestly not trying to have that discussion. What I am trying to understand is the critieria for literal vs. figurative language of those who insist that the days of Genesis 1 must be 24 hours.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
Having studied St. Augustine, I find myself unaware of that teaching.
May I suggest:
"Aug., Ep. 54, 7 : "And as they were eating," whereby it is clearly seen that at their first partaking of the Lord's Body and Blood, the disciples did not partake fasting. But are we therefore to except against the practice of the whole Church, of receiving fasting? It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost, that for the better honour of so great a Sacrament, the Lord`s Body should enter the Christian's mouth before other food. For to commend more mightily the depth of this mystery, the Saviour chose this as the last thing He would imprint on the hearts and memory of His disciples, from whom He was to depart to His Passion. But He did not direct in what order it should thenceforth be taken, that He might reserve that for the Apostles by whom He would regulate His Church.
I apologize - I have tried very hard to stay focused on the question I originally asked and not get dragged into a discussion of sacramental theology. But, yes, Mel, I couldn't ignore the bait. Oops, I goofed! this seems to reflect the opposite - the standard Catholic/Orthodox/Lutheran/Anglo-Catholic view [A]Seriously, there are some quotes supporting the spiritual aspect:While St. Augustine (died 430) can be quoted to support various views of the Lord's Supper, he apparently accepted the widespread realism theory of his time,15 though in some passages he clearly describes the Lord's Supper as a spiritual eating and drinking.16
# Cited by Kelly, pp. 446-448, Augustine, Enarr. in ps. 3, 1; 98, 9; Serm. 131, 1; tract. in ev. Ioh. 27, 5; 25, 12; 26, 1.Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
George Somsel said:
Just where does it do that?
v51a "I am the living bread that came down from heaven." As opposed to dead (real) bread.
v52 The Jews obviously have a problem with a literal interpretation of eating Jesus.
V53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." Here Jesus speaks to living, breathing, logical humans telling them they are not alive unless they partake of him. Either Jesus definition of "life" is different than the Jews or the unbelieving zombies forgot to fall down when they died.
V54 "Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life," Now we know he is talking of the spiritual., since physical life comes to an end.
V55 "for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." As opposed to false food and false drink. (Matthew 4:4)
V57 "Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me." Man became spiritually dead on the day he ate of the fruit in the Garden. (otherwise God lied to Adam and Satan told the truth.) Here Jesus offers a quickening to fallen man. Jesus is the living bread. The living Father sent him. Jesus will make us alive. This is obviously spriritual language.
V58 Here Jesus contrasts manna to the living bread. In the spiritual realm manna is insufficient even though God provided it to Israel. God met the temporal needs with manna. He meets the spiritual needs with Jesus.My guiding principle here is - If a literal interpretation confllicts with other scripture we need to look deeper. I do know of instances where the literal is true as well as a deeper message. Isaiah's prophecy "a young woman shall concieve" is an example of this. It's not willy-nilly. Jesus being the living bread, you might say, metaphorically speaking Mary had a bun in the oven. [:S] (For those who may not be familiar with American idioms, that means Mary was pregnant.)
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
VincentSetterholm said:
Search for 'Behemot' without the h. In modern Hebrew, the tav (taw) is always 't', never 'th'.
Thanks. Quite interesting reading
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
If a literal interpretation confllicts with other scripture we need to look deeper.
Again, this is a statement I can work with ... here is a sound principle that I agree with. Unfortunately, I have also learned that my question was apparently not well formed to obtain the information I sought. I would say that there are passages that conflict with Genesis 1 as literal and that there are passages that conflict with John 6 if it is taken as figurative.
I think that I will carry two things away from this discussion:
1) that historically (according to scholars on both sides of the John 6 issue) real presence was simply the accepted view up to the 9th century when it started to be debated and common vocabulary created - something I'd never checked into before.
2) that the sola scriptura group is a collection of splinter groups using sound principles to come to varying positions (24 hour days vs. period of time) which appear to boil down to what I would call authority and tradition ... i.e. what one has been taught it means is what one believes it to mean. One major difference between the sola scriptura groups and the Catholic/Orthodox groups is that the latter make the authority and tradition explicit; in the former it is implicit.
Note: I do not mean "splinter group" in a negative sense - merely that there are a large number of groups that have varying views of what the Bible says. According to Christianity Today "There are approximately 38,000 Christian denominations in the world.
(Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (2006))".Moral: my collection and classification of creeds will never be done. [Okay, that a 3rd thing]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
contrasts manna to the living bread
Isn't this a standard type/antitype construction?
Matthew C Jones said:This is obviously spriritual language.
"Obviously" is a marker for an underlying assumption that one considers to be self-evident. It is that underlying assumption I am trying to grasp.
Since I do not understand where "spiritual language" falls on the "literal language - figurative language" spectrum, I don't have a clue as to what you are trying to say. To guess at its meaning, I would have to fall back on the Jewish-Catholic-(marginally Orthodox) tradition of the four senses of scripture which clearly you don't mean. Why do I say "marginally Orthodox" - because typology flourished in Antioch and, hence, was a primary influence in the East. "Four senses" flourished in Alexandria and , hence, was a primary influence in the West. See The Power of the Word: In the Worshiping Church by John Breck.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I would say that there are passages that conflict with Genesis 1 as literal and that there are passages that conflict with John 6 if it is taken as figurative.
I quote my earlier post: "Any time a scriptural reading appears to violate or contradict another scriprural reading we are obviously misreading at least one of them."
MJ. Smith said:2) that the sola scriptura group is a collection of splinter groups using sound principles to come to varying positions (24 hour days vs. period of time) which appear to boil down to what I would call authority and tradition ... i.e. what one has been taught it means is what one believes it to mean. One major difference between the sola scriptura groups and the Catholic/Orthodox groups is that the latter make the authority and tradition explicit; in the former it is implicit.
Reasonably true but a generalization. I disagree with the blue text. I think it safer to say a true adherant to sola scriptura would devote themselves to constant self-examination in light of scripture and correct any newly revealed error they may have held to, including error they had been taught. I know I have made several drastic adjustmets in my adult life. I expect I will make a few more That is on an individualistic basis. The splinter groups do as exactly as you say.you say. But most sola scriptura adherents believe in the priesthood of all believers.
Since the majority of disagreements among Bible readers are not on doctrines essential to salvation I am presently comfortable with my methods of Biblical hermeneutics.
FYI: In a nutshell, I could easily endorse the wording of the Apostles' Creed, even the use of "catholic" (with a small "c" meaning universal.) I was raised Independent Christian Church (Alexander Campbell, et al.) They basically have two creeds: "Where the Bible speaks we speak. Where the Bible is silent, we are silent" and humorously "No creed but the Bible."
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
"Obviously" is a marker for an underlying assumption that one considers to be self-evident. It is that underlying assumption I am trying to grasp.
Since I do not understand where "spiritual language" falls on the "literal language - figurative language" spectrum, I don't have a clue as to what you are trying to say. To guess at its meaning, I would have to fall back on the Jewish-Catholic-(marginally Orthodox) tradition of the four senses of scripture which clearly you don't mean. Why do I say "marginally Orthodox" - because typology flourished in Antioch and, hence, was a primary influence in the East. "Four senses" flourished in Alexandria and , hence, was a primary influence in the West. See The Power of the Word: In the Worshiping Church by John Breck.
Ha! M.J. you are such a generous soul.
Yours in Christ
John
0 -
This has been a great discussion, (and i don't discourage it it has been great reading) but we have kind of gotten of on a tangent from my original question:
I just want to know, What you believe the Behemoth is. And i know, as we have read over the past pages that everyone has different ways of getting their answer or conclusion. but just a show of hands (so to speak) of what each of you believe. Thanks
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Since I do not understand where "spiritual language" falls on the "literal language - figurative language" spectrum, I don't have a clue as to what you are trying to say. To guess at its meaning, I would have to fall back on the Jewish-Catholic-(marginally Orthodox) tradition of the four senses of scripture which clearly you don't mean.
"Spiritual language" is the Tropological sense.
I don't know why you can't loosely pigeon-hole me into the 4 senses as defined by the Catholic Church Catechism 115-119. Two of my terms are exact, the other two are functionally similar.
literal = Literal,
allegorical = Allegory.
metaphorical = Tropological (literal pointing to the spiritual aka "Kingdom of God"
parabolic = Anagogical (or as the Church of Christ says "an earthly story with a heavenly meaning.") but not exclusively to the future so much as who we (already) are in Christ. This definition is my greatest digress from the "4 senses."If you hold to the 4 senses how can you read about Behemoth in any of the last three? Once again I have to accept the Bible literally in this account. This time by process of elimination,
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
priesthood of all believers
You are, I assume, aware that the Catholic/Orthodox position is also that one is baptized as prophet, priest and king ... i.e. priesthood of all believers.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
AaronStevens said:This has been a great discussion, (and i don't discourage it it has been great reading) but we have kind of gotten of on a tangent from my original question:
I just want to know, What you believe the Behemoth is. And i know, as we have read over the past pages that everyone has different ways of getting their answer or conclusion. but just a show of hands (so to speak) of what each of you believe. Thanks
A real creature of enormous size and strength, created by God. (Ditto for Leviathan.) [C]Thanks for the lively thread, Aaron, MJ, George and John!Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Matthew C Jones said:
priesthood of all believers
You are, I assume, aware that the Catholic/Orthodox position is also that one is baptized as prophet, priest and king ... i.e. priesthood of all believers.
Actually, No. I did not know that. Good to learn something new.
Aaron wants his Behemoth back so I'll try to stop.........at least in this thread. [:D]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
I don't know why you can't loosely pigeon-hole me into the 4 senses as defined by the Catholic Church Catechism 115-119.
No problem placing you in the 4-senses if that's where you want to be. Generally "spiritual sense" is used to refer to the final three but I understand your use now and have no problem with it. It was your apparent equation of literal meaning = plain meaning that threw me. My apologies.
From a review of Jaroslav Pelikan on Acts: "because biblical scholarship has become such a hydra-headed behemoth the only lack of the
volume is depth and complexity of developments over the last 20-30 years." ... I think that is the closest to a visual picture that I'll go for (just kidding).Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:MJ. Smith said:Matthew C Jones said:
priesthood of all believers
You are, I assume, aware that the Catholic/Orthodox position is also that one is baptized as prophet, priest and king ... i.e. priesthood of all believers.
Actually, No. I did not know that. Good to learn something new.
Aaron wants his Behemoth back so I'll try to stop.........at least in this thread.
[:D] Thanks. Hey id don't mind the discussions that we have had, I have quite enjoyed it. [:D] i just wanted to get a tally. and bring us back to the question, I know it's hard, the same as studying for teaching, you see something interesting and start digging and before you know it you way off from what you were initially studying.
0 -
0
-
Matthew C Jones said:
My guiding principle here is - If a literal interpretation confllicts with other scripture we need to look deeper. I do know of instances where the literal is true as well as a deeper message. Isaiah's prophecy "a young woman shall concieve" is an example of this. It's not willy-nilly. Jesus being the living bread, you might say, metaphorically speaking Mary had a bun in the oven.
(For those who may not be familiar with American idioms, that means Mary was pregnant.)In other words, whatever makes it say what you want it to say.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:Matthew C Jones said:
My guiding principle here is - If a literal interpretation confllicts with other scripture we need to look deeper. I do know of instances where the literal is true as well as a deeper message. Isaiah's prophecy "a young woman shall concieve" is an example of this. It's not willy-nilly. Jesus being the living bread, you might say, metaphorically speaking Mary had a bun in the oven.
(For those who may not be familiar with American idioms, that means Mary was pregnant.)In other words, whatever makes it say what you want it to say.
And I was trying oh so hard not to post off-topic again! [:(]
No George, there are a lot of literal scriptural renderings I wish were not true. Things like eternal punishmmet, persecution of Israel, beheading of saints in Rev 20, Herod's execution of babies; these are things I would rather not read literally. But the Bible is not my product. I am not God and I am sure He knows better.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
literal scriptural renderings
As to why I prefer "plain meaning" from a site that cross many of my unacceptable lines - multi-colored, poorly formatted etc. http://www.lifedesign.ca/tru_bibleplain.html chosen simply as the first definition I ran into on a web search.
To know the truth (what actually happened)
we must honor...
The Plain Meaning of Scripture
1. Is NOT the Wooden Literal Meaning
Taking every word in the Bible literally would be blind rebellion.
As the world's best literature, the Bible is full of all kinds of
non-literal language. Metaphors, similies, figures of speech, parables,
visions, poetry and proverbs. Each of these methods were selected by
the Master Communicator because it is better than an entirely literal
Bible to reveal perfect truth. Our first task is to submit to His
powerful use of language, not to overrule it in any way. Furthermore
the plain meaning does
not mean simple —the Bible is always profound.- 2.
Believes that the Bible Is What It Claims to be —God's Words "No
prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
for no prophecy was ever made an act of human will,
but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2Pet.1:20,213. Honors The Greatest Communicator
Treat His words as if He Says What He Means and Means What He Says.
After all He taught, "Let
your Yea be Yea and your Nay be Nay."4. Seeks ONLY the Author's Meaning
Never The Reader's Meaning
Always come to Scripture as a learner, never an expert. If the reader
decides the meaning of words then the Author's meaning, right or wrong,
can never reach the intended destination: the reader's mind.- 5. Presupposes Common Word and Sentence Meanings
- When the tempter used God's own words to test Jesus,
Jesus' simple "It is written" ended all negotiation. (Mat.4).
The prophets stopped semantic debate with,"Thus Saith the Lord."
Truth is in the words—never in the interpretation.
- 6. Follows the Universal Rules for Non-literal Language
- The
Bible is full of non-literal language governed by universal rules that
guide the reader to the Author's meaning, never his own.
Mythology is treated as myth because that is what it claims to be.
Scripture claims to be an inerrant record of history —past, present
and future.
It begins with, "In the beginning..." It does not begin with "Once
upon a time..."
- 7. Draws Only Deeper Meaning Consistent with ALL of Scripture
- Every
historical event in Scripture has spiritual implications. History is
the framework on which the Bible teaches spiritual truth. In this way
we learn to apply spiritual principles back to our real life history.
Any secondary meaning will not contradict the plain meaning of the text.
Inerrancy is horizontal —consistency between passages, and vertical —consistency
between levels of meaning.
8. Tests for Doctrinal HARMONY
The Plain Meaning of Scripture does not hang for its life on semantics.
We must also "Prove All Things" by"comparing
spiritual things with spiritual."
testing every so-called 'interpretation' for doctrinal harmony.Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 - When the tempter used God's own words to test Jesus,
-
MJ,
That all looks real good to me. I could only improve on it with italics, underlining and a few emoticons.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
AaronStevens said:
What is Behemoth??
Apparently, a behemoth is a long, off-topic discussion, that takes on a life of it's own, and seeks to take the discussion as far off-topic as it can. They are all over this forum.
Does anyone know a really good exterminator?
[sigh]
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:AaronStevens said:
What is Behemoth??
Apparently, a behemoth is a long, off-topic discussion, that takes on a life of it's own, and seeks to take the discussion as far off-topic as it can. They are all over this forum.
Does anyone know a really good exterminator?
[sigh]
Ummm...... Uh Huh [*-)]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
a behemoth is a long, off-topic discussion
Definitely a possibility - but at least none of us pointed out that it may not be terrestial - God did create a whole universe you know, perhaps even all possible universes depending on your choice of physicists.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Some cling to the "Gap theory"
"Cling" isn't a very fair word, is it?
Besides, that's not the only view -- cf. John Walton's new book: The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate.
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:AaronStevens said:
in Genesis chapter 1 is when God created everything, God created all the land animals and Man on day 6, now is a dinosaur a land animal?? Of course it is, so both man and dinosaurs co-existed
I totally agree with you Aaron.
But not everybody takes the six day creation as 6 literal 24 hour periods. Some cling to the "Gap theory" believing there were possibly millions of years between a failed original creation/evolution and the Garden of Eden narrative. Who knows, they may even believe God created Adam as a newborn baby and he had to grow up through all stages of child development. (Evolving into a mature man.....
)The "gap theory" actually makes more sense than thinking that the earth is literally 6,000 years old. For those that are unfamiliar with the gap theory, wikipedia has a little write-up regarding it here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_theory
The Hebrew completely supports there being a gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. In Genesis 1:2 we see that the earth BECAME tohu wa bohu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tohu_wa-bohu yet nobody ever seems to get around to reading Isaiah 45:18 in the Hebrew to find that God did not create the earth that way. They further do not read Jeremiah 4:23 where the casting down of the last age is narrated nor do they bother to read 2 Peter chapter 3 starting with about verse 5 where Peter speaks about the previous age. Take into account that Satan was once good and held high estate but fell from grace and is sentenced by name to die yet in the book of Genesis in the garden he is already evil. So, when was he good if there was not an age on this earth before this present one?
Just about any scientist/geologist that has to deal with reality knows that the earth is billions of years old. The Bible is reality AND the age of this earth is really much more than 6,000 years. Having faith in God doesn't mean that you have to believe dumb things like the earth being only 6,000 years old. This current age may only be a few thousand years old, but the earth was created by God a long, long time ago and the Bible supports it. And it's not "clinging" to any theory - God Himself says that He did not make it as it is in Genesis 1:2 (read the Isaiah reference). Why would God create something tohu wa bohu? The gap "theory" is not a theory, it happens to be truth.
Since you chose to use the word CLING, I felt it A-OK to offer a rebuttal in truth. I fully realize that these forums are not for theological debate, but I WILL stick up for truth when I see someone make light of it.
Oh, and the behemoth happens to be a dinosaur. God made those and they lived here on earth millions of years ago. That happens to be a scientific fact. The description of the behemoth will ONLY fit a dinosaur. Having faith in the Word doesn't mean that you have to believe stupid things.
Mike
0 -
I say that as our understanding grows when it comes to difficult passages of the Bible, we should be willing to adjust our interpretive framework, where it may be needed, and with that, please revv up your Logos Bible software and check out this article by Mortenson in The Master’s Seminary Journal 18/1 (Spring 2007): 69-98. You can purchase Volume 11 of the Theological Journal Library from Logos if you do not have this article, or you can view it online by clicking here. There is also a companion article by Mortenson comparing what the views of various authors of systematic theologies profess, such as this resource available from Logos by Wayne Grudem, by clicking here.
0 -
MikeM said:
Since you chose to use the word CLING, I felt it A-OK to offer a rebuttal in truth. I fully realize that these forums are not for theological debate, but I WILL stick up for truth when I see someone make light of it.
Mike, Only way you can guarantee the "gap theory" is TRUTH is if you are God (which you are not), OR, You are behemoth (& was there to witness it all, which you didn't.)
My God is big enough to have created Adam as a fully matured adult male (if God so wanted to) and my God is big enough to have created the whole "sha-Bang" to appear as if it is "BBBBillions & BBBBilions" of years old. Just go ask Carl Sagan. I have met mere mortals who claim to have a corner on the TRUTH. But Hawkings, Einstien, Feynman et. al. usually leave room to be wrong. And in Hawkings case he had to eat crow and admit he was wrong (first edition of Brief Hstory of Time.)
Cling away! [;)] I have always maintained Behemoth is a dinosaur & Leviathan too. You neglect the geological facts that show catastrophic (fast) changes can give the illusion of millions of years when only taking a decade or two. I lived at the base of an active volcano and climbed many more. I have been fascinated with geology & botany since childhood and seen rock petrify quickly, coal develop in 16 years, and luminescent moss feeding off new lava rock.
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. Proverbs 25:2
Whether you are right or not makes no difference to me. I am content to believe God made it all. I don't need to prove His details.
(notice how I worked in a big "BANG"? Clever, huh?)
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
MikeM said:
Just about any scientist
Just about any scientist will also say people don't come back from the dead, walk on water get born of a virgin or ... I tend to think God makes fun of the world's "wise" men.
God created lot's of things that appear to have become useless to His purposes in a very short period of time. Did not Jesus curse a barren fig tree while it was still alive? I won't second guess Him.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
http://community.logos.com/forums/t/10072.aspx
Does this thread comply with our guidelines?
Grace & Peace,
Bill
MSI GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
iPhone 12 Pro Max 512Gb
iPad 9th Gen iOS 15.6, 256GB0 -
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
BillS said:
No Bill, It does not. I'm sorry. At least Tim Lord & Mike Aubrey referenced some good Logos resources.
I cease & desist.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Tim Lord said:
See now, his strength is in his hips, and his power is in his stomach muscles.
Well, THAT could also be Rosie O'Donnell. Except the "his" part, but then.....
Tim Lord said:For another possibility, how about similar to the Brachiosauraus?
Everybody knows, that the last dinosaur standing, was the Benedicamus.
0
