Paul knocked off his high horse.

4,361 Views | 38 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by codker92
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Acts 9:4.

And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"

The word falling to the ground seems to imply that Saul/Paul was not on the ground to begin with. This seems to suggest Paul fell off his horse or donkey or camel. That is, Paul was literally knocked off his high horse.

Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Does it though? People don't have to be on top of something to be accurately described as falling to the ground. A person who is just walking around can fall to the ground.

That said, we're commenting on a translation here and I have no idea what connotations the original text might have had.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I've always just assumed he was walking. The whole geographical idea of being on the road to Emmaus is a bit tough to figure out/guess at, but it might have only been 7 miles, and they were chatting so I really think it is more likely they were on foot.

Kinda curious what others think though.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

I've always just assumed he was walking. The whole geographical idea of being on the road to Emmaus is a bit tough to figure out/guess at, but it might have only been 7 miles, and they were chatting so I really think it is more likely they were on foot.

Kinda curious what others think though.
This is a different encounter than the road to Emmaus. I am talking about Acts 9:1-7.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rocag said:

Does it though? People don't have to be on top of something to be accurately described as falling to the ground. A person who is just walking around can fall to the ground.

That said, we're commenting on a translation here and I have no idea what connotations the original text might have had.

You are talking about in English. I am not aware of any such connection in Hebrew or Greek or Latin, i.e. the original written langauge.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://biblehub.com/greek/4098.htm

of descent from an erect to a prostrate position (Latin labor, ruo; prolabor, procido; collabor, etc.);

a. properly;
a to fall down:, Luke 20:18; Matthew 21:44; Luke 20:18; Luke 23:30; Revelation 6:16.

B. to be prostrated, fall prostrate; of those overcome by terror or astonishment or grief: John 18:6; Acts 22:7; Acts 9:4; Matthew 17:6; or under the attack of an evil spirit: Mark 9:20; or falling dead suddenly: Revelation 1:17; Acts 5:5; Acts 5:10; 1 Corinthians 10:8; Luke 21:24; Hebrews 3:17 (Numbers 14:29, 32).

C to prostrate oneself; used now of suppliants, now of persons rendering homage or worship to one: Mark 14:35; as finite verb, Matthew 2:11; Matthew 4:9; Matthew 18:26; Revelation 5:14; Revelation 19:4; Revelation 22:8; Matthew 18:29; John 11:32; Mark 5:22; Luke 8:41; Revelation 19:10; Revelation 4:10; Revelation 5:8; Matthew 26:39; Luke 5:12; Luke 17:16; Acts 10:25; 1 Corinthians 14:25; Revelation 7:11; Revelation 11:16.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

https://biblehub.com/greek/4098.htm

of descent from an erect to a prostrate position (Latin labor, ruo; prolabor, procido; collabor, etc.);

a. properly;
a to fall down:, Luke 20:18; Matthew 21:44; Luke 20:18; Luke 23:30; Revelation 6:16.

B. to be prostrated, fall prostrate; of those overcome by terror or astonishment or grief: John 18:6; Acts 22:7; Acts 9:4; Matthew 17:6; or under the attack of an evil spirit: Mark 9:20; or falling dead suddenly: Revelation 1:17; Acts 5:5; Acts 5:10; 1 Corinthians 10:8; Luke 21:24; Hebrews 3:17 (Numbers 14:29, 32).

C to prostrate oneself; used now of suppliants, now of persons rendering homage or worship to one: Mark 14:35; as finite verb, Matthew 2:11; Matthew 4:9; Matthew 18:26; Revelation 5:14; Revelation 19:4; Revelation 22:8; Matthew 18:29; John 11:32; Mark 5:22; Luke 8:41; Revelation 19:10; Revelation 4:10; Revelation 5:8; Matthew 26:39; Luke 5:12; Luke 17:16; Acts 10:25; 1 Corinthians 14:25; Revelation 7:11; Revelation 11:16.


This doesn't appear to exclude Saul from riding a horse.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

This doesn't appear to exclude Saul from riding a horse.
Is there some significance to him being thrown from a horse due to the light vs. prostrating in fear?
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:


Quote:

This doesn't appear to exclude Saul from riding a horse.
Is there some significance to him being thrown from a horse due to the light vs. prostrating in fear?
Well, if Paul was prostrate that would imply some sort of reverence, which, does not seem to fit Paul's attitude about the Lord at the time. I would like to point out that is does not say that Paul fell on his face, which would imply bowing down. It simply says that Paul went from an erect position to an flat position on the ground. Sounds to me like the horse was spooked and he fell off the back. Paul was knocked off his high horse.
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You're inserting a horse into the passage when absolutely no horse is mentioned and one isn't needed to understand the text. Why?
powerbelly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wouldn't Paul have been praying on his feet facing Jerusalem when Jesus appeared? As a Pharisee it seems likely he would have observed the mid-day prayer.
OceanStateAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The whole notion of Paul being thrown off a horse really doesn't enter into the conversation until much, much later. Caravaggio popularized that idea with his artwork (as a prime example), but we can't assume from the text that Paul was riding upon any animal when the event occurred.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rocag said:

You're inserting a horse into the passage when absolutely no horse is mentioned and one isn't needed to understand the text. Why?
I am not inserting a horse into the passage. Paul is falling of his horse in the passage.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
powerbelly said:

Wouldn't Paul have been praying on his feet facing Jerusalem when Jesus appeared? As a Pharisee it seems likely he would have observed the mid-day prayer.
In the passage he was on his way to Damascus with a group of other people. The passages states that the bright light, which blinded Paul and prevented him from perceiving Yahweh, fell from heaven as Paul approached Damascus. It seems most likely that Paul was approaching Damascus on a donkey, camel, mule, or horse.

EDIT 5/27/2022 2:08PM:

For what it is worth, in Pauls retelling of this encounter in Acts 22:6

And it happened that as I was traveling and approaching Damascus around noon, suddenly a very bright from heaven flashed around me.

So apparently the light appeared while Paul was travelling.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OceanStateAg said:

The whole notion of Paul being thrown off a horse really doesn't enter into the conversation until much, much later. Caravaggio popularized that idea with his artwork (as a prime example), but we can't assume from the text that Paul was riding upon any animal when the event occurred.
The passage doesn't say that Paul was wearing sandals either, but my money is on him wearing sandals.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
codker92 said:

Rocag said:

You're inserting a horse into the passage when absolutely no horse is mentioned and one isn't needed to understand the text. Why?
I am not inserting a horse into the passage. Paul is falling of his horse in the passage.
What does it matter?
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Because there's a phrase in English about people falling off their high horses which is only maybe applicable to this passage if we assume that Paul was riding on a horse that the text just forgot to mention and without that assumption codker's point doesn't make any sense at all.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

codker92 said:

Rocag said:

You're inserting a horse into the passage when absolutely no horse is mentioned and one isn't needed to understand the text. Why?
I am not inserting a horse into the passage. Paul is falling of his horse in the passage.
What does it matter?

For what it is worth, Saul's question, as well as Jesus' response appear to be an allusion to Moses' encounter with Yahweh in the burning bush. Exod. 3:14.

Paul was forced to the ground like in Ezek 1:28; Dan 10:9; Rev. 1:17

However, Paul did not fall on his face like Ezekiel or Daniel. Paul was not at the feet of the Lord like in Revelation.

Paul's description of the encounter is similar to Dan 10:7, where people around the prophet perceive the full extent of the event.

It does not appear that Paul's encounter with the Lord carries the same seal as previous prophetic commissions.

As to the horse, the horse itself carries with it images of conquest. That is, the Glory of God fully disarmed Paul's scheme against the Righteous Remnant by knocking him off his horse.
BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
codker92 said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

codker92 said:

Rocag said:

You're inserting a horse into the passage when absolutely no horse is mentioned and one isn't needed to understand the text. Why?
I am not inserting a horse into the passage. Paul is falling of his horse in the passage.
What does it matter?

For what it is worth, Saul's question, as well as Jesus' response appear to be an allusion to Moses' encounter with Yahweh in the burning bush. Exod. 3:14.

Paul was forced to the ground like in Ezek 1:28; Dan 10:9; Rev. 1:17

However, Paul did not fall on his face like Ezekiel or Daniel. Paul was not at the feet of the Lord like in Revelation.

Paul's description of the encounter is similar to Dan 10:7, where people around the prophet perceive the full extent of the event.

It does not appear that Paul's encounter with the Lord carries the same seal as previous prophetic commissions.

As to the horse, the horse itself carries with it images of conquest. That is, the Glory of God fully disarmed Paul's scheme against the Righteous Remnant by knocking him off his horse.
It's a bit scary to consider what else you read into scripture that isn't there implicitly or explicitly. This is why Christ created his Church and why scriptures are materially sufficient but not necessarily formally sufficient. Which is why we study and look to the church, tradition and church fathers to help better understand meaning and context. Did anyone prior to the Middle Ages read into this passage about Paul and promote the importance that he must have been on a horse and fell off?
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
codker92 said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

codker92 said:

Rocag said:

You're inserting a horse into the passage when absolutely no horse is mentioned and one isn't needed to understand the text. Why?
I am not inserting a horse into the passage. Paul is falling of his horse in the passage.
What does it matter?

For what it is worth, Saul's question, as well as Jesus' response appear to be an allusion to Moses' encounter with Yahweh in the burning bush. Exod. 3:14.

Paul was forced to the ground like in Ezek 1:28; Dan 10:9; Rev. 1:17

However, Paul did not fall on his face like Ezekiel or Daniel. Paul was not at the feet of the Lord like in Revelation.

Paul's description of the encounter is similar to Dan 10:7, where people around the prophet perceive the full extent of the event.

It does not appear that Paul's encounter with the Lord carries the same seal as previous prophetic commissions.

As to the horse, the horse itself carries with it images of conquest. That is, the Glory of God fully disarmed Paul's scheme against the Righteous Remnant by knocking him off his horse.
Seems to me if the author meant to convey that message, the word "horse" would have entered the text.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rocag said:

Because there's a phrase in English about people falling off their high horses which is only maybe applicable to this passage if we assume that Paul was riding on a horse that the text just forgot to mention and without that assumption codker's point doesn't make any sense at all.
The English saying/euphemism has nothing to do with Paul though (and comes much, much later in time, as English itself did).

Paul also already had great reverence for God, before his conversion. His fear/love of God motivated him both as a pharisee, and afterward.

As per others above, a horse would be surprising, to say the least, as it would have involved a lot of money to be spent to use/buy said horse, when walking would have been just fine. It also wouldn't add anything to the story/meaning. I don't believe Paul ever subsequently mentioned (or pseudo pauline books) riding a horse on his journeys. Then, as now, horses as transportation were quite expensive, and rabbi's famously walked, and their disciples learned from the dust of the rabbi's sandals while walking to their next locale.


codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BluHorseShu said:

codker92 said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

codker92 said:

Rocag said:

You're inserting a horse into the passage when absolutely no horse is mentioned and one isn't needed to understand the text. Why?
I am not inserting a horse into the passage. Paul is falling of his horse in the passage.
What does it matter?

For what it is worth, Saul's question, as well as Jesus' response appear to be an allusion to Moses' encounter with Yahweh in the burning bush. Exod. 3:14.

Paul was forced to the ground like in Ezek 1:28; Dan 10:9; Rev. 1:17

However, Paul did not fall on his face like Ezekiel or Daniel. Paul was not at the feet of the Lord like in Revelation.

Paul's description of the encounter is similar to Dan 10:7, where people around the prophet perceive the full extent of the event.

It does not appear that Paul's encounter with the Lord carries the same seal as previous prophetic commissions.

As to the horse, the horse itself carries with it images of conquest. That is, the Glory of God fully disarmed Paul's scheme against the Righteous Remnant by knocking him off his horse.
It's a bit scary to consider what else you read into scripture that isn't there implicitly or explicitly. This is why Christ created his Church and why scriptures are materially sufficient but not necessarily formally sufficient. Which is why we study and look to the church, tradition and church fathers to help better understand meaning and context. Did anyone prior to the Middle Ages read into this passage about Paul and promote the importance that he must have been on a horse and fell off?


Yea, the book of Joseph and Asenath was written between 100 BC and 100 AD. In the book pharaohs son is knocked off his horse by a flying stone. It's alluding to Jesus knocking Paul off his horse.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

Rocag said:

Because there's a phrase in English about people falling off their high horses which is only maybe applicable to this passage if we assume that Paul was riding on a horse that the text just forgot to mention and without that assumption codker's point doesn't make any sense at all.
The English saying/euphemism has nothing to do with Paul though (and comes much, much later in time, as English itself did).

Paul also already had great reverence for God, before his conversion. His fear/love of God motivated him both as a pharisee, and afterward.

As per others above, a horse would be surprising, to say the least, as it would have involved a lot of money to be spent to use/buy said horse, when walking would have been just fine. It also wouldn't add anything to the story/meaning. I don't believe Paul ever subsequently mentioned (or pseudo pauline books) riding a horse on his journeys. Then, as now, horses as transportation were quite expensive, and rabbi's famously walked, and their disciples learned from the dust of the rabbi's sandals while walking to their next locale.





Yea, the book of Joseph and Asenath was written between 100 BC and 100 AD. In the book pharaohs son is knocked off his horse by a flying stone. It's alluding to Jesus knocking Paul off his horse.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Umm, I'm not willing to accept that a book possibly written originally by a jew, in greek, in 200BC, that is non-biblical, was essentially lost for centuries, and was revised in the (500's or so?) to be christianized, is the origin for the euphemism, or that the author had divine insight into Paul's equine steed, but I don't care if others do think this.

Once again, there would be no historical, or textual reason to believe a horse was involved in this narrative of one event told in different places.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

Umm, I'm not willing to accept that a book possibly written originally by a jew, in greek, in 200BC, that is non-biblical, was essentially lost for centuries, and was revised in the (500's or so?) to be christianized, is the origin for the euphemism, or that the author had divine insight into Paul's equine steed, but I don't care if others do think this.

Once again, there would be no historical, or textual reason to believe a horse was involved in this narrative of one event told in different places.


The entire Bible was written by Jews…

Sighs…
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
codker92 said:

nortex97 said:

Umm, I'm not willing to accept that a book possibly written originally by a jew, in greek, in 200BC, that is non-biblical, was essentially lost for centuries, and was revised in the (500's or so?) to be christianized, is the origin for the euphemism, or that the author had divine insight into Paul's equine steed, but I don't care if others do think this.

Once again, there would be no historical, or textual reason to believe a horse was involved in this narrative of one event told in different places.

The entire Bible was written by Jews…

Sighs…
I mean, sure (Luke-Acts, Revelation, maybe John, Job wasn't jewish, perhaps stuff between Geneses and Abraham, but whatever, no need to nitpick), but not much was written about Paul, in Greek by a jew, in 200BC, right? Again it's sort of of odd that this saying, from a lost/obscure maybe-BC source, references/prophesies a horse that…isn't needed/referenced in the biblical tale. Why do you want that to be true?

The so-called "Five Books of Moses" were written by Persian-Babylonians, which is why the Egyptians are so badly slandered. The same goes for Isaiah, Ezra, Nehemiah, Kings, and Chronicles. Those authors were not Judahites they can be called Jews largely because they defined the Jewish religion.

The books most clearly authored by Jews are Maccabees 1 & 2, though excluded from the Christian canon, largely.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I didn't say that Joseph and Aseneth was the origin of the English phrase.

It looks like Acts, which is written after Joseph and Aseneth, is alluding to Joseph and Aseneth.
BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
codker92 said:

I didn't say that Joseph and Aseneth was the origin of the English phrase.

It looks like Acts, which is written after Joseph and Aseneth, is alluding to Joseph and Aseneth.
I guess we'll just agree to disagree. It has no salvific importance whether it references a horse or not for the scriptures intent to work. So, not a hill (or a horse) to die on
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is interesting that some translations add that "it is hard for you to kick against the goads." This implies that Paul was a dumb animal that was refusing to be goaded in the right direction, like a stubborn ox. Had he just been thrown from a beast of burden, it would be symbolic that Paul, the great intellectual, was about to become the beast of burden to carry Jesus to the Gentiles. From riding the donkey to being the donkey...not that important, but it illustrates his dramatic change in his relationship to Christ. Much like his blindness, whereby he realized that he was not a true religious scholar at all, but just another blind guide in matters pertaining to eternity.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
94chem said:

It is interesting that some translations add that "it is hard for you to kick against the goads." This implies that Paul was a dumb animal that was refusing to be goaded in the right direction, like a stubborn ox. Had he just been thrown from a beast of burden, it would be symbolic that Paul, the great intellectual, was about to become the beast of burden to carry Jesus to the Gentiles. From riding the donkey to being the donkey...not that important, but it illustrates his dramatic change in his relationship to Christ. Much like his blindness, whereby he realized that he was not a true religious scholar at all, but just another blind guide in matters pertaining to eternity.


Interestingly, elsewhere in the Bible, Jesus is compared to an ox.

In Deuteronomy 33:17, Moses says that the one promised to Joseph is going to be like a second Joshua. And he will be sacrificed like a firstborn ox. That's a domestic ox, a firstborn ox, which is born to sacrifice, born condemned to die.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
codker92 said:

94chem said:

It is interesting that some translations add that "it is hard for you to kick against the goads." This implies that Paul was a dumb animal that was refusing to be goaded in the right direction, like a stubborn ox. Had he just been thrown from a beast of burden, it would be symbolic that Paul, the great intellectual, was about to become the beast of burden to carry Jesus to the Gentiles. From riding the donkey to being the donkey...not that important, but it illustrates his dramatic change in his relationship to Christ. Much like his blindness, whereby he realized that he was not a true religious scholar at all, but just another blind guide in matters pertaining to eternity.


Interestingly, elsewhere in the Bible, Jesus is compared to an ox.

In Deuteronomy 33:17, Moses says that the one promised to Joseph is going to be like a second Joshua. And he will be sacrificed like a firstborn ox. That's a domestic ox, a firstborn ox, which is born to sacrifice, born condemned to die.
Not sure I agree about your reference to the firstborn ox/Joshua.

Quote:

The oxen are Joseph's sons, all of whom were strong, but the firstborn excelled the rest, and was endowed with majesty. It is Ephraim that is referred to, whom Jacob raised to the position of the firstborn (Genesis 48:8, etc.). His horns are like the horns of unicorns; literally, and horns of a ream are his horns. The ream is supposed to be the aurochs, an animal of the bovine species, allied to the buffalo, now extinct, but which the Assyrian bas-reliefs show to have been formerly hunted in that region (cf. Job 39:9, etc.; Psalms 22:22; Rawlinson 'Anc. Men.,' 1.284). By his strong power, Ephraim should thrust down nations, even the most distant. And they are the ten thousands of Ephraim; and these are, etc.; i.e. in such might will the myriads of Ephraim come forth. To Ephraim, as the chief, the myriads are assigned; to Manasseh only the thousands.
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

codker92 said:

94chem said:

It is interesting that some translations add that "it is hard for you to kick against the goads." This implies that Paul was a dumb animal that was refusing to be goaded in the right direction, like a stubborn ox. Had he just been thrown from a beast of burden, it would be symbolic that Paul, the great intellectual, was about to become the beast of burden to carry Jesus to the Gentiles. From riding the donkey to being the donkey...not that important, but it illustrates his dramatic change in his relationship to Christ. Much like his blindness, whereby he realized that he was not a true religious scholar at all, but just another blind guide in matters pertaining to eternity.


Interestingly, elsewhere in the Bible, Jesus is compared to an ox.

In Deuteronomy 33:17, Moses says that the one promised to Joseph is going to be like a second Joshua. And he will be sacrificed like a firstborn ox. That's a domestic ox, a firstborn ox, which is born to sacrifice, born condemned to die.
Not sure I agree about your reference to the firstborn ox/Joshua.

Quote:

The oxen are Joseph's sons, all of whom were strong, but the firstborn excelled the rest, and was endowed with majesty. It is Ephraim that is referred to, whom Jacob raised to the position of the firstborn (Genesis 48:8, etc.). His horns are like the horns of unicorns; literally, and horns of a ream are his horns. The ream is supposed to be the aurochs, an animal of the bovine species, allied to the buffalo, now extinct, but which the Assyrian bas-reliefs show to have been formerly hunted in that region (cf. Job 39:9, etc.; Psalms 22:22; Rawlinson 'Anc. Men.,' 1.284). By his strong power, Ephraim should thrust down nations, even the most distant. And they are the ten thousands of Ephraim; and these are, etc.; i.e. in such might will the myriads of Ephraim come forth. To Ephraim, as the chief, the myriads are assigned; to Manasseh only the thousands.

Well you reference the fact that Ephraim/Joseph was raised to the position of first born, so you would agree then, that first born is not a literal term, but in fact, a title. However, I believe you are missing a key verse from Genesis. In Genesis 49:22-24 it says as follows:

22 Joseph is the bough of a fruitful vine, a fruitful bough by a spring. His branches climb over the wall.
23 The archers (deber) attacked him. They shot arrows at him and were hostile to him.
24 But his bow remained in a steady position; his arms were made agile by the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob. From there is the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel.

That is Jacob's blessing on Joseph in Genesis. Now, when we read that together with Deut. 33:17 it makes more sense. In the Genesis account, the Rock of Israel belongs to Joseph, in the Duet account, the firstborn ox belongs to Joseph.

Firstborn is an important term that does not have anything to do with actual birth in time or order. It is political and positional preeminence.

An ox is used as symbolism for the Messiah in 1 Enoch 90, this is the famous Animal Apocalypse that Animal Farm is modelled after.

The whole Animal Apocalypse is [about the] major figures of the Old Testament storyline. The story gets retold, but the characters are now animals. That's why it's called the Animal Apocalypse. In the story Enoch gets a vision of the transformation of Joseph into a king.

In Enoch 90, an white ox is born that:

"I saw that a white ox was born, with large horns and all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air feared him and made petition to him all the time. 38 I saw till all their generations were transformed, and they all became white bulls; and the first among them became a lamb, and that lamb became a great animal and had great black horns on its head; and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced over it and over all the oxen. 39 I slept in their midst: and I awoke and saw everything."

Later in the story the white is transformed, glorified, and it becomes king.

Conclusion:

It appears that the ox, then, is a symbol of the messiah. Hence, why the figures in the God's throne room have a lion, an ox, an eagle, and a man...

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
More plagiarism

https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/NB-386-Transcript.pdf
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

More plagiarism

https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/NB-386-Transcript.pdf


That's public domain
BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
codker92 said:

Zobel said:

More plagiarism

https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/NB-386-Transcript.pdf


That's public domain
I think his point was that if you at least site where you got the info, it helps 1) support your posits and allows people to assess the authority's interpretation; and 2) let's people know whether these are your own words or not. Scripture itself isn't ambiguous, only peoples interpretations
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.