Image
Image
Image

Topics Calendar

May 2019

S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31

Who is online

In total there are 18 users online :: 7 registered, 0 hidden and 11 guests

Most users ever online was 454 on Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:04 pm

Registered users: AhrefsBot, Araman, Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], richardt84, SemrushBot, YandexBot


Legend :: Administrators, Moderators

Statistics

Total posts 667215
Total topics 19206
Total members 2943
Our newest member Diabhal

Biblical matters

Fancy a pint? Join the crai­c and non-rugby topics here.

Moderators: The Fonz, Moderators

  • Advertisement

Topic Rating:
  • 5 votes
  

Re: Biblical matters

Postby Dave » Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:30 pm

The NIV says lesbians are grand though.

1 Corinthians 6:8-10 New International Version (NIV)

8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlerswill inherit the kingdom of God.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 20141
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Postby Dave » Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:34 pm

Feck me....I'm too innocent for all this...Image
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 20141
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Postby Dave » Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:40 pm

How do you know if a woman is approaching an animal with the intention of having sex? Image
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 20141
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Postby UlsterAreBrill » Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:43 pm

Dave wrote:I can see that homosexuals acts are seen as sinful. Basically what I am saying is they would not have had a concept of a sexual orientation in this time period, from what I understand. You can see below the condemnation for someone who is a homosexual.

1 Corinthians 6:8-10 New King James Version (NKJV)

8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]homosexuals, nor [b]sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.



This is the same message that Folau communicated. Therefore it does not matter if someone is celibate. The same sex attraction they are born with will condemn them to hell.



Dont know Dave

How I would respond, hopefully somewhat sensitively/accurately

Firstly I do think there was some idea of sexual orientation in terms of the concept. If a man was attracted to a woman, they would have known they were straight, they just wouldn't have labelled it as such more due to ignorance than anything

Then we get to Sodom and Gomorrah, where we see glimpses of homosexuality. Surely it could be argued that there would have been a recognition or acknowledgment that their sexual orientation was different, again without putting a label on it, even back then? (that's not be giving a definite answer, i'm asking for thoughts on this one)

And in the verse you quoted, I think you need to look outside the homosexuality there. What does fornication, idolatry, adultery, theft, drunkenness, and so on, all have in common, which all receive equal weight? They are all acts. Paul was a very very intelligent man so it would be somewhat illogical to compile a list of unrighteous actions bar one. So there is a separation of someone's identity(orientation) and the actions they commit along with it.

The ESV translation (which for me is the best translation), gives the same passage, but makes this distinction

8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers![a]

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Hopefully this somewhat satisfies as an answer
User avatar
UlsterAreBrill
Initiate
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:30 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Postby Dave » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:09 pm


Dont know Dave

How I would respond, hopefully somewhat sensitively/accurately

Firstly I do think there was some idea of sexual orientation in terms of the concept. If a man was attracted to a woman, they would have known they were straight, they just wouldn't have labelled it as such more due to ignorance than anything

Then we get to Sodom and Gomorrah, where we see glimpses of homosexuality. Surely it could be argued that there would have been a recognition or acknowledgment that their sexual orientation was different, again without putting a label on it, even back then? (that's not be giving a definite answer, i'm asking for thoughts on this one)

And in the verse you quoted, I think you need to look outside the homosexuality there. What does fornication, idolatry, adultery, theft, drunkenness, and so on, all have in common, which all receive equal weight? They are all acts. Paul was a very very intelligent man so it would be somewhat illogical to compile a list of unrighteous actions bar one. So there is a separation of someone's identity(orientation) and the actions they commit along with it.

The ESV translation (which for me is the best translation), gives the same passage, but makes this distinction

8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers![a]

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Hopefully this somewhat satisfies as an answer


If it's so illogical for Paul to describe a list of acts bar one, why has he? Or at least been attributed as saying so in the NKJV. Or has the word homosexual no actual place whatsoever in the bible?

This is a major flaw with the concept of a holy bible, there are so many different translations. Both in this example, are stating something fundamentally different. I don't understand how both can be the word of God? You seem to have chosen the most palatable version.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 20141
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Postby Cap'n Grumpy » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:24 pm

Dave wrote:
1 Corinthians 6:8-10 New King James Version (NKJV)

8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [ a ] homosexuals, nor [ b ] sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.



This is the same message that Folau communicated. Therefore it does not matter if someone is celibate. The same sex attraction they are born with will condemn them to hell.

This does not refer to celibacy. Note that there are two "notes" labelled [a] and [b} referred to by the translators.

What these notes refer to are:
[ a ] homosexuals actually refers to catamites or those submitting to homosexual practices (catamites makes the distinction between boys and men submitting to homosexual practices where catamites are the boys). Either may be homosexuals or non-homosexuals, but who either way, submit to homosexual practice for whatever reason, eg prostitution.
[ b ] sodomites refers to adult male homosexuals engaged in homosexual activity with those "submitting to" it.

Neither relates to celibacy but both are to do with practicing homosexuality.

The other sexual references are:
fornicators - those who engage in heterosexual activity outside of marriage
adulterers - those who are married but engage in heterosexual activity with another person who is not their spouse (married or unmarried).

Paul, in this letter to the Church at Corinth, is not singling out practicing homosexuals for special attention - he is applying sexual immorality equally to heterosexuals who engage in sex outside of marriage and homosexuals who do likewise (marriage being unknown between two males at that time). Something many modern day Christians (including Folau, I suspect) should be more considerate of.

This passage, as I understand it, does not condemn anyone for their sexual preference, only for their sexual practice - whether heterosexual or homosexual.

I would also caution quoting individual verses out of context - and that is done by those on both sides of some arguments to "prove" their point. It is usually helpful to read such verses in the context of [1] the chapter, [2] the rest of the book, and [3] other writings by the same author as these often make clear(er) the intended meaning.

That applies to a wide range of books, not only the Bible or other religious writings.
Sadly the days of people using proper English are went
User avatar
Cap'n Grumpy
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 13617
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?

Re: Biblical matters

Postby UlsterAreBrill » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:30 pm

Dave wrote:

Dont know Dave

How I would respond, hopefully somewhat sensitively/accurately

Firstly I do think there was some idea of sexual orientation in terms of the concept. If a man was attracted to a woman, they would have known they were straight, they just wouldn't have labelled it as such more due to ignorance than anything

Then we get to Sodom and Gomorrah, where we see glimpses of homosexuality. Surely it could be argued that there would have been a recognition or acknowledgment that their sexual orientation was different, again without putting a label on it, even back then? (that's not be giving a definite answer, i'm asking for thoughts on this one)

And in the verse you quoted, I think you need to look outside the homosexuality there. What does fornication, idolatry, adultery, theft, drunkenness, and so on, all have in common, which all receive equal weight? They are all acts. Paul was a very very intelligent man so it would be somewhat illogical to compile a list of unrighteous actions bar one. So there is a separation of someone's identity(orientation) and the actions they commit along with it.

The ESV translation (which for me is the best translation), gives the same passage, but makes this distinction

8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers![a]

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Hopefully this somewhat satisfies as an answer


If it's so illogical for Paul to describe a list of acts bar one, why has he? Or at least been attributed as saying so in the NKJV. Or has the word homosexual no actual place whatsoever in the bible?

This is a major flaw with the concept of a holy bible, there are so many different translations. Both in this example, are stating something fundamentally different. I don't understand how both can be the word of God? You seem to have chosen the most palatable version.


He hasnt described a list of acts bar one, that’s the point. Clearly he is referring to homosexuality as an act, that it why it is put in such a list. That would he my take on it, logically the structure makes more sense to me

I think homosexual acts have a place in the bible, however orientation perhaps doesnt. People who are same sex attracted, on the assumption of celibacy, clearly are exempt from that list given it is a list of actions people would carry out. If a homosexual stayed celibate their whole life, and lived as a Christian, what grounds are there for then not going to heaven?

In terms of translation, every translation uses the same original manuscripts (to my knowledge anyway). The main differences is how they are translated. Some would effectively translate it word for word or as literally as possible, others would translate the “essence” or thought of the manuscript, while others just paraphrase the sentences and change it completely.

However I dont think they are translating something fundamentally different. One is perhaps clearer than the other, but certainly how I read it I dont think so. If it’s any consolation, I wrote my original response that it was a list of actions from the KJV before referencing the ESV
User avatar
UlsterAreBrill
Initiate
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:30 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Postby Jackie Brown » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:39 pm

UlsterAreBrill wrote:
Jackie Brown wrote:I love how the bible can be all about picking a choosing, like a morality buffet. Some things are literal some need to be interpreted.

Pity the word of God didn't bother to include anything about the Small Pox Vaccine or Germ Theory. I do enjoy the angry bears though.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


Here comes the intellectual giant of the forum

It's quite simple really

The bible is a collection of books, spanning different genres. Would you expect to go in to a library and read every single book using the same parameters? Would you read science fiction books through the same lens as a biography on a musician? Interpret a poetry book through the same lens as a historical textbook?
Always interesting to see what nonsense you can spout next.

Surely you wouldn't lump all the books about completely unrelated topics together and compare that to the bible. The bible has an over arching theme, a story, a story of a guy who enjoys a bit of baby killing and picked a single tribe to bless above all others.

Now obviously you're not a fan of truth, enlightenment or cold hard facts but I didn't have you down for being brad pitt at sarcasm too.

Can I ask you a question, why did you pick Christianity over Hinduism, Judaism, Islam etc.? There are thousands of gods to chose from, why did you pick Yahweh?

Still waiting on your primary source btw.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Gonna Party Like It's 1999
User avatar
Jackie Brown
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 10981
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:15 pm
Location: Carrickfergus

Re: Biblical matters

Postby Cap'n Grumpy » Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:02 am

Dave wrote:This is a major flaw with the concept of a holy bible, there are so many different translations. Both in this example, are stating something fundamentally different. I don't understand how both can be the word of God? You seem to have chosen the most palatable version.

The KJV was originally translated in the early 17th Century using the earliest texts available at that time. Two things have changed since then.

Firstly earlier original texts have been found which offer a more accurate translation. It should be considered however that differences between different early texts are minimal and no essential doctrine of the faith is compromised or denied by these. Thousands of texts from the first century onward have been found (usually incomplete) but in each of these, any variation is minimal - possibly a spelling error, or changing order of words (eg Christ Jesus and Jesus Christ). Such errors do not nullify the meaning of these texts. Indeed the number of documents found over the centuries tends to confirm the meaning of the original autographs by the sheer number and relative conformity from one text to another. Remember too that these passages were deeply revered by those who copied and translated them and for the first centuries, copying was by hand by educated people only not an automated printing methodology. It was common practice to destroy any and all copies which were found to have any error from the original being copied, and that might be for as little as getting one letter or word wrong or out of place. Of course some errors did get through, but as stated, no essential doctrine of the faith is compromised or denied by these. One exception which amusingly is known about and the error clear was the "Wicked Bible" or "Adulterous Bible" printed in 1631 which omitted the word "not" from the commandment "thou shalt not commit adultery". The error was spotted before all copies were printed and distributed, so most were destroyed but a few did make it into circulation and are in existence today and are valuable simply for their historical and novelty value. (The printer, BTW, lost his right to print the Bible thereafter).

Secondly, all language changes and evolves over time. Some of the words used in the 17th century have changed their meaning now.Sometimes this is obvious even today, but sometimes if not known, it can radically change the meaning of a certain passage. For instance, in King James’ day the word ‘prevent’ could mean ‘come before’ but not necessarily in a hindering way. So the translators in that day translated 1 Thes. 4:15, ‘For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.’ Today the word ‘prevent’ has lost that earlier meaning (come before), so it must be translated differently to convey the proper meaning: ‘According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not ‘precede’ those who have fallen asleep’ (NIV). ...To keep the translation of God’s Word living it must be kept in the language the people are still using.”

Dunno if this answers your query, but maybe it helps a little???
Sadly the days of people using proper English are went
User avatar
Cap'n Grumpy
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 13617
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?

Re: Biblical matters

Postby Dave » Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:11 am

Cap'n Grumpy wrote:
Dave wrote:
1 Corinthians 6:8-10 New King James Version (NKJV)

8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [ a ] homosexuals, nor [ b ] sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.



This is the same message that Folau communicated. Therefore it does not matter if someone is celibate. The same sex attraction they are born with will condemn them to hell.

This does not refer to celibacy. Note that there are two "notes" labelled [a] and [b} referred to by the translators.

What these notes refer to are:
[ a ] homosexuals actually refers to catamites or those submitting to homosexual practices (catamites makes the distinction between boys and men submitting to homosexual practices where catamites are the boys). Either may be homosexuals or non-homosexuals, but who either way, submit to homosexual practice for whatever reason, eg prostitution.
[ b ] sodomites refers to adult male homosexuals engaged in homosexual activity with those "submitting to" it.

Neither relates to celibacy but both are to do with practicing homosexuality.

The other sexual references are:
fornicators - those who engage in heterosexual activity outside of marriage
adulterers - those who are married but engage in heterosexual activity with another person who is not their spouse (married or unmarried).

Paul, in this letter to the Church at Corinth, is not singling out practicing homosexuals for special attention - he is applying sexual immorality equally to heterosexuals who engage in sex outside of marriage and homosexuals who do likewise (marriage being unknown between two males at that time). Something many modern day Christians (including Folau, I suspect) should be more considerate of.

This passage, as I understand it, does not condemn anyone for their sexual preference, only for their sexual practice - whether heterosexual or homosexual.

I would also caution quoting individual verses out of context - and that is done by those on both sides of some arguments to "prove" their point. It is usually helpful to read such verses in the context of [1] the chapter, [2] the rest of the book, and [3] other writings by the same author as these often make clear(er) the intended meaning.

That applies to a wide range of books, not only the Bible or other religious writings.


This is a little bizarre. They appear to have made up their own definition of the word homosexual. I didn't know that the word of God required footnotes. I do think it is an unnecessary use of the term homosexual, given it's modern connotation is towards an inate attraction.

How does this definition apply this to a Christian couple in a loving same sex relationship? It does not seem to be directed towards such a concept. Paul is directly seems to be addressing something else. Are the specific forbidden acts listed anywhere? Could a same sex relationship occur without being sinful, perhaps without penetrative sex?
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 20141
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Postby Dave » Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:13 am

UlsterAreBrill wrote:
Dave wrote:

Dont know Dave

How I would respond, hopefully somewhat sensitively/accurately

Firstly I do think there was some idea of sexual orientation in terms of the concept. If a man was attracted to a woman, they would have known they were straight, they just wouldn't have labelled it as such more due to ignorance than anything

Then we get to Sodom and Gomorrah, where we see glimpses of homosexuality. Surely it could be argued that there would have been a recognition or acknowledgment that their sexual orientation was different, again without putting a label on it, even back then? (that's not be giving a definite answer, i'm asking for thoughts on this one)

And in the verse you quoted, I think you need to look outside the homosexuality there. What does fornication, idolatry, adultery, theft, drunkenness, and so on, all have in common, which all receive equal weight? They are all acts. Paul was a very very intelligent man so it would be somewhat illogical to compile a list of unrighteous actions bar one. So there is a separation of someone's identity(orientation) and the actions they commit along with it.

The ESV translation (which for me is the best translation), gives the same passage, but makes this distinction

8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers![a]

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Hopefully this somewhat satisfies as an answer


If it's so illogical for Paul to describe a list of acts bar one, why has he? Or at least been attributed as saying so in the NKJV. Or has the word homosexual no actual place whatsoever in the bible?

This is a major flaw with the concept of a holy bible, there are so many different translations. Both in this example, are stating something fundamentally different. I don't understand how both can be the word of God? You seem to have chosen the most palatable version.


He hasnt described a list of acts bar one, that’s the point. Clearly he is referring to homosexuality as an act, that it why it is put in such a list. That would he my take on it, logically the structure makes more sense to me

I think homosexual acts have a place in the bible, however orientation perhaps doesnt. People who are same sex attracted, on the assumption of celibacy, clearly are exempt from that list given it is a list of actions people would carry out. If a homosexual stayed celibate their whole life, and lived as a Christian, what grounds are there for then not going to heaven?

In terms of translation, every translation uses the same original manuscripts (to my knowledge anyway). The main differences is how they are translated. Some would effectively translate it word for word or as literally as possible, others would translate the “essence” or thought of the manuscript, while others just paraphrase the sentences and change it completely.

However I dont think they are translating something fundamentally different. One is perhaps clearer than the other, but certainly how I read it I dont think so. If it’s any consolation, I wrote my original response that it was a list of actions from the KJV before referencing the ESV


I agree that any reference to orientation should not be there. Grumpy has confirmed that it isn't.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 20141
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Postby Cap'n Grumpy » Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:36 am

Dave wrote:This is a little bizarre. They appear to have made up their own definition of the word homosexual. I didn't know that the word of God required footnotes. I do think it is an unnecessary use of the term homosexual, given it's modern connotation is towards an inate attraction.

How does this definition apply this to a Christian couple in a loving same sex relationship? It does not seem to be directed towards such a concept. Paul is directly seems to be addressing something else. Are the specific forbidden acts listed anywhere? Could a same sex relationship occur without being sinful, perhaps without penetrative sex?

The New Testament of the New KJV was first published 40 years ago with the actual work of translating taking 5-10 years before that. Even in the past 40-50 years there have been stupendous changes in how society views and understands sexual orientation.

Many versions of the Bible offer notes which are referred to either by way of a reference in brackets, or a change in colour of the text. This may be because the exact translation was not clear to the translators, and in order that they do not mislead by suggesting a wrong translation, they offer up the best available information and/or alternative translations. Again there are no great changes in Christian doctrine arising from such offerings. The reasons for these are sometimes down to differences in languages in that some words in one language do not necessarily have a direct translation into English (or any other language you may be translating into). Sometimes a descriptive approach may be required and obviously that may be subjective. In such cases, the Bible makes such clear by notations at the appropriate place. Alternatively, just as in English, some words can have more than one meaning. Usually the context makes that meaning clear, but it may not be obvious, in which case the alternatives are set out for the reader.

I suspect Paul is not addressing this letter to anyone in a same sex relationship. While such were not unknown in Judaism and the surrounding cultures, it was not common to openly live in such an arrangement, so I doubt this was intended for this scenario. I believe it was intended for anyone practicing sexual relationships outside of a relationship (marriage) and as stated before, applied to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

Also as mentioned previously, I know of two Christian same sex relationships in which all parties claim to lead a celibate life. I do not consider it any of my business to judge or condemn these. I take them at their word, and as they believe they will one day face judgement by their God, that is a matter between them and Him. The same applies to all relationships, heterosexual and homosexual, in my mind.
Sadly the days of people using proper English are went
User avatar
Cap'n Grumpy
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 13617
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?

Re: Biblical matters

Postby Cap'n Grumpy » Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:42 am

Dave wrote:I agree that any reference to orientation should not be there. Grumpy has confirmed that it isn't.

Aye but can you believe anything he says, the old bluffer. >EW

Please note that I do not claim to have answers to each and every question,and I answer as best I can,when I can. I hope I am providing accurate assessment, but I am no theologian, just an amateur with an interest, trying to live as best I can and often getting it wrong.
Sadly the days of people using proper English are went
User avatar
Cap'n Grumpy
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 13617
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?

Re: Biblical matters

Postby Dave » Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:38 pm

I had a lengthy reply written and lost it. Just imagine my response and continue.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 20141
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Postby UlsterAreBrill » Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:05 pm

Dave wrote:I had a lengthy reply written and lost it. Just imagine my response and continue.


I concur
User avatar
UlsterAreBrill
Initiate
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:30 pm

PreviousNext


  • Advertisement

Return to The Back Room 'Lock In'

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], SemrushBot and 2 guests

Recent Forum Topics

!-- Piwik -->