Interpreting Scripture


jcob
 Share

Recommended Posts

Agreed, but they were still interpreting the Old Testament without a Prophet.

I thanked this post to highlight it. I strongly disagree that they were intrpreting it without a prophet. They took the message they were given by a prophet and used it to interpret the scriptures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I thanked this post to highlight it. I strongly disagree that they were intrpreting it without a prophet. They took the message they were given by a prophet and used it to interpret the scriptures.

Thats a fair statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is really what people are getting at. A prophet establishes the interpretation for the community as a whole. That is, how we are to live by it. Doesn't make us mindless automatons.

Could someone interpret Genesis 1:11-19? What is the meaning of theses verses? Was there really grass and trees producing seeds and fruit before there was a sun or moon? If so did something happen to them? Are the grasses and trees currently on earth of a "different" creation? Was the earth here (revolving around what?) before the sun? Is there any possibility something is missing here?

The Traveler

PS - Sorry volgadon - did not mean to copy your post.

Edited by Traveler
ps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could someone interpret Genesis 1:11-19? What is the meaning of theses verses? Was there really grass and trees producing seeds and fruit before there was a sun or moon? If so did something happen to them? Are the grasses and trees currently on earth of a "different" creation? Was the earth here (revolving around what?) before the sun? Is there any possibility something is missing here?

The Traveler

PS - Sorry volgadon - did not mean to copy your post.

May I ask in which order were you reading Genesis?

Did you read verses 1-11? Or did you just start at 11 and read from there on?

Could it be possible that you missed reading from the beginning?

Genesis 1:3

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Psalm 33:9

For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

This is where our hearts should plant the "Seed of faith" and grow in order and obedience to Heavenly Fathers plan . Reading Genesis 1:11-19 explains how the seeds grew certain kinds of herbs, grass, fruits. And the order which these seeds grew were in the order of there kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could someone interpret Genesis 1:11-19? What is the meaning of theses verses? Was there really grass and trees producing seeds and fruit before there was a sun or moon? If so did something happen to them? Are the grasses and trees currently on earth of a "different" creation? Was the earth here (revolving around what?) before the sun? Is there any possibility something is missing here?

The Traveler

Traveler,

I commented on this question in another thread. Here are my thoughts...

I don't believe Day 3 and 4 need be "completely disregarded". Period one ends with the creation of light and darkness. What is this light? Could it be a Sun? I see no reason to think that it could not. What then of period 4? Elder Nelson explains it this way, "Lights in the expanse of the heaven were organized so there could be seasons and other means of measuring time. During this period, the sun, the moon, the stars, and the earth were placed in proper relationship to one another (GC, April 2000, "The Creation", italics added). Period 4 might then account for a time when the Earth, Moon, and Sun were placed in their proper orbits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James12 and Sicily510,

Thank you for your responses. Having read and studied and contemplated scripture for many years – I am convinced of a number of things concerning the account of creation given us in scripture. Two things I am quite certain of (but could be enlightened if someone understands things that I do not). First is that the scriptures are often symbolic. It appears to me that Moses created an ancient Egyptian literary Colophon as a symbolic representation of his account of creation. It is interesting to me that the Bible is so arranged to that the beginning and end are talking about the exact same thing. That G-d is about separating the light he created from the darkness that was always there. The final judgment spoken of in the Book of Revelation as G-d finishes his work – the light is still being separated from the darkness. I think the scriptural reference to light goes far beyond the spectrum of energy of electromagnetic radiation.

The second thing that I am convinced of in scripture is that if you attempt to match in correlation, the symbols employed in scripture you will discover a great deal is missing in describing actual historical events. So much so that I am convinced that those that interpret scripture in such intent and manner are wrong and error – both in regards to historical events and to the spiritual symbolism.

Thus my question concerning Genesis 1:11-19 was to pre-assess what kind of “thinkers” I am dealing with. My problem is that once I know the depth of thinking I tend more to abuse that knowledge rather than be able to use it to any benefit of anybody and thus I am rightfully seen as arrogant. And for that I apologize – again. Sorry.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody said to me the other day that I cant interpret Scipture and that only the Prophet can interpret Gods word. They used 2 Peter 1:20 to support their arguement. But in context all this is saying is that Scripture does not come from any private origin (from the apostles own minds) but is inpired of the Lord through the Holy Spirit.

In response I said that it is through Gods word that we gain knowledge and understanding (Proverbs 2:6). If we dont have the capacity to understand the scriptures ourselves then we can pray for the wisdom to understand the scriptures (James 1:5).

In Acts 17:11 some people were commended for searching the answers in the scriptures becouse they did not believe the apostles.

And finally, the Scriptures teach us how to discern a false prophet. So if I need the prophet to interpret for me then I could never know if he is a false prophet.

Any more thoughts, im not sure I have him convinced yet. Is there some support I am missing?

Probably someone already mentioned this but in my brief view of the thread I didn't see it. I apologize if it has already been mentioned. It is not a prophet that you are talking about alone but a seer.

Mossiah 8 " 15 And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.

16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God.

17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.

18 Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings."

And yes it is still through faith (not knowledge) that the "fellow being" benefit is had, as explained in verse 18.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to summarize my arguement, see below. Please let me know your thoughts on each point.

Somebody said to me that I can’t interpret Scripture and that only the Prophet can interpret Gods word. They used 2 Peter 1:20 to support their argument.

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

Personally I believe that if Peter was telling us that we could not privately interpret scripture he might have said:

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is [for] any private interpretation.”

Context supports the idea that he was speaking of the origin of prophecy (not the apostles own minds and ideas, but inspired of the Lord through the Holy Spirit).

“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” – 2 Peter 1:16

“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” – 2 Peter 1:21

-

In Acts 17:11 a group of people were commended for searching out the answers in the scriptures.

-

The Bible teaches us how to discern who a false prophet is by the way of various tests (Deuteronomy 18, Isaiah 8:20, Jeremiah 23:14, Jeremiah 28:9, Mathew 7:15 etc)

What use are these tests if only a prophet can interpret the meaning of them?

-

Peter affirmed that Pauls writings were scripture (2 Peter 3:16). What gave the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, etc. the right to interpret Pauls letters, since none of them were Prophets? Perhaps you dont need authority to understand Gods word?

-

I would like to hear how you might interpret James 1:5 and Proverbs 2:6? Personally I see this as: God gives us his wisdom (ie. the capacity to comprehend) but we gain knowledge and understanding through God's word.

-

Most Christian denominations agree on interpretations of the majority of Biblical scripture to do with the essentials (Salvation). The Churches which usually disagree on doctrines are:

- Churches that claim to have a man or Prophet who is the exclusive interpreter of scripture

- Churches that claim the Bible is full of errors / mistranslations

- Churches that claim that the writers were not all inspired by God

Private Interpretation? The statement is factually correct. The Prophet is the only person on this earth who is able to receive direct revelation which affects the whole body of the church. An individual, is not able to receive "private revelation" and then act according to his/her private interpretation, if it contradicts current doctrine. Example, Branch President on my mission who begin allowing women to conduct a sacrament meeting and pass the sacrament.

Another example, is when polygamy was no longer authorized to practice, yet some members thinking, a private interpretation, moved to Mexico to continue practicing polygamy. As a result of private interpretatio, the Church, has had to deal with the repetuation of break off groups which are and have been a result of "private interpretation." I believe, correct if wrong, the RLDS church was a result of "private interpretation" that the next prophet should be one of Joseph Smith's sons.

I believe in relation to Acts 17:11, it definitely is commendable that we search out answers to questions within scriptures as long as we stay within our stewardships. The moment we step out of our stewardships, with private interpretation, then we have crossed specific bounds established by the Lord, for our guidance and happiness.

As pertaining to some comments, with God commanding us to murder, one must be very careful that they don't condemn the idea all together. In scriptures, we know of accounts where the Lord did command his children to kill "innocents." Or, to kill a person, if not innocent.

Examples: Nephi & Laban. Abraham & Isaac. The children of Israel and how they were commanded not only to kill the men, they were commanded to kill women and children, and to kill the baby within the womb.

I would hope, if I every came to a "more sure word of prophecy" and the Lord commanded me to kill someone, even an innocent, as with Abraham, that my reaction would be like Nephi's, "Nay Lord, I have never shed innocent blood" (This is paraphrased for all you sticklers).

Nephi, was provided an angelic visitation and was again commanded to kill Laban. And we know according to record, Laban's head was no longer attached to his body.

We also know according to record the children of Israel did kill the men, women, and children.

One of the very purposes as specified in Ephesians is to bring everyone to a unity of faith. This can only be accomplished if there is organization, and within that organization, guidelines and rules that everyone follows.

We have thousands of Christian churches today due to "private interpretation." When we have one head who is authorized by God to interpret scripture for the church collecively, then if people are obedient, all can come to the unity of faith.

I also, wonder if this is a result of doctrine, verses the application of doctrine. We all have the doctrine, and every family is unique and different, in how they interpret or apply that doctrine within their home.

My father tells me of a story when we lived in Germany about a member of the Church who was very close to the spirit and had the spirit of prophecy. This individual would begin to prophesy and it amazed many members when they would come true. Unfortunately, this person became arrogant, and received a prophecy to begin another church. Unfortunately, many members within this ward followed.

This is another example of one ability to come close to the spirit, and then step the guidelines established. If the members would have understood the organization, and the Lord would never step out of His bounds, pertaining to leadership, none of these members would have followed but they did.

Great question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James12 and Sicily510,

Thank you for your responses. Having read and studied and contemplated scripture for many years – I am convinced of a number of things concerning the account of creation given us in scripture. Two things I am quite certain of (but could be enlightened if someone understands things that I do not). First is that the scriptures are often symbolic. It appears to me that Moses created an ancient Egyptian literary Colophon as a symbolic representation of his account of creation. It is interesting to me that the Bible is so arranged to that the beginning and end are talking about the exact same thing. That G-d is about separating the light he created from the darkness that was always there. The final judgment spoken of in the Book of Revelation as G-d finishes his work – the light is still being separated from the darkness. I think the scriptural reference to light goes far beyond the spectrum of energy of electromagnetic radiation.

The second thing that I am convinced of in scripture is that if you attempt to match in correlation, the symbols employed in scripture you will discover a great deal is missing in describing actual historical events. So much so that I am convinced that those that interpret scripture in such intent and manner are wrong and error – both in regards to historical events and to the spiritual symbolism.

Thus my question concerning Genesis 1:11-19 was to pre-assess what kind of “thinkers” I am dealing with. My problem is that once I know the depth of thinking I tend more to abuse that knowledge rather than be able to use it to any benefit of anybody and thus I am rightfully seen as arrogant. And for that I apologize – again. Sorry.

The Traveler

I think there are a few references in LDS scriptures to the divine light of creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it fascinating that people argue about a book that was translated 1600 years after the main characters death. The Bible as we know it, or rather, the King James version is a collection of books that I suspect have lost much of their authenticity over the 1600 years of translations and mis-representations. Lets not forget that some of the scriptures were written in such a manner as to sell a religion to skeptics that lacked a formal education. Not only that, the stories that predate the main character are based on legend and to be taken at face value seems proposterous.

I am not slandering the standard works by any means, but I am only attempting to interject a note of caution into this discussion. There is much good to found by studying the scriptures, but there is much that is taken at face value and that worries me.

I did find it interesting to learn from my Islamic friends that they consider the Bible corrupt. Furthermore, I did find it odd when I did read the Koran that there was much bias to be found as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it fascinating that people argue about a book that was translated 1600 years after the main characters death. The Bible as we know it, or rather, the King James version is a collection of books that I suspect have lost much of their authenticity over the 1600 years of translations and mis-representations. Lets not forget that some of the scriptures were written in such a manner as to sell a religion to skeptics that lacked a formal education. Not only that, the stories that predate the main character are based on legend and to be taken at face value seems proposterous.

I am not slandering the standard works by any means, but I am only attempting to interject a note of caution into this discussion. There is much good to found by studying the scriptures, but there is much that is taken at face value and that worries me.

I did find it interesting to learn from my Islamic friends that they consider the Bible corrupt. Furthermore, I did find it odd when I did read the Koran that there was much bias to be found as well.

True, the bible (KJV) is a compilation of books written after the Jesus walked the Earth, and yes during the reign of the Roman Empire the books within the bible went through quite the editing process in that Councils within the government (prior to any separation of church and state). The twelve Councils of Constantanople discuss what books are the word of God and are to be considered sacred, and what ones are to be eliminated. And yes Christianity went through a lot of changes from trying to bring appeal and selling new ideas to the Greeks and Roman pagans and various sects of Jews (who were debating what was true and viable in the Torah). Eventually Christianity was no longer "sold" to the masses, rather forced upon them. Then more debating when the Protestant reformation brought more contention and divisiveness regarding what was the true word of God.

Some of this was actually printed in tracts that LDS missionaries used as recently 20 or so years ago but do not have this in their lesson information anymore that I know of.

It seems no wonder why Heavenly Father saw fit to call on the likes of Joseph Smith who was a young man of pure heart that prayed to seek what religion was true. Then what follows is the Book Of Mormon which clarify's scripture and get his church back on track.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you accept the logic that the Bible is a collection of suspect works, then I would think you would understand that the Book of Mormon is also suspect. We can give Joseph Smith all the credit he deserves, even with his lack of formal schooling, but we can't forget that he translated from many authors as well.

Whether we choose to believe what is written is still a matter of faith, but we should not take what is written for face value. If we accept that, we are more willing to actually accept the spirit of the scriptures rather than the arguable semantics. Revelation, even if it moves at a sloth like speed, attempts to remedy this.

Truth has always been relative to our positions and to claim that we have all truth is too pretentious and arrogant for me. Statements of arrogance generally alienate, rather than invite a discussion for shared truth.

Then again, my moderate views on the whole thing upset people because they perceive it as a source of fear that what they accept as absolute, is not. Perhaps my lack of secondary education is considered a handicap, despite knowing that education does not equate intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then again, my moderate views on the whole thing upset people because they perceive it as a source of fear that what they accept as absolute, is not.

I'm really just interested in what books of scripture you consider were written "in such a manner as to sell a religion to skeptics that lacked a formal education."

Perhaps my lack of secondary education is considered a handicap, despite knowing that education does not equate intelligence.

I don't have a secondary education either, so that can't be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you accept the logic that the Bible is a collection of suspect works, then I would think you would understand that the Book of Mormon is also suspect. We can give Joseph Smith all the credit he deserves, even with his lack of formal schooling, but we can't forget that he translated from many authors as well.

Whether we choose to believe what is written is still a matter of faith, but we should not take what is written for face value. If we accept that, we are more willing to actually accept the spirit of the scriptures rather than the arguable semantics. Revelation, even if it moves at a sloth like speed, attempts to remedy this.

Truth has always been relative to our positions and to claim that we have all truth is too pretentious and arrogant for me. Statements of arrogance generally alienate, rather than invite a discussion for shared truth.

Then again, my moderate views on the whole thing upset people because they perceive it as a source of fear that what they accept as absolute, is not. Perhaps my lack of secondary education is considered a handicap, despite knowing that education does not equate intelligence.

I would not say that the bible is a collection of "suspect" works at all. If we embrace this kind of thinking than EVERYTHING we read; newspapers, books, history, science is suspect. Perhaps a better term is that it is open for discussion, and I find that the LDS church members have numerous discussions regarding many biblical readings. Perhaps you don't hear these discussions in a Gospel Principle class because many investigatiors or new members are just getting the grasp of the basics.

What history shows us is not so much as whether scriptures are "true" rather how they were and still are interpreted by various groups that developed religious denominations around their interpretations that in turn became cultural. In other words, just because someone says a biblical writing is true does not mean it is necessarily false to someone else who simply interprets it differently.

The same with Joseph Smith. I believe the fact that he fervently prayed to be guided as to what church he should join is not to imply he thought one may be absolute truth and the rest of the denonminations false.

It is my understanding that Heavenly Father's plan with Joseph Smith was for him to record and translate scriptures that were left out that had become unavailable to humankind. And also to restore and re-establish the church of Jesus Christ on Earth, and make the Book Of Mormon available to other seekers of scripture.

As for the comments about the selling of the idea of Christianity. There is not one specific book. It's a matter of History that many Greeks and Romans practiced pagen religions, and Jews had a number of religious sects within their own ranks (some of which followed Jesus in his time). Perhaps one of the best salesmen/missionaries that was out gathering Christian members was Paul after his conversion. Since Paul was neigher Roman or Jew, but had an education in Hellenistic thought and a bacground knowledge of what others thought, the teaching part became easier than most (that is as long as the students were willing to learn), and he managed to stay aliove in the face of hostile opposition.

The second part of selling, (in which this latter case was not selling so much as ordering the masses), came from the government of the day. Remember that back then the government and religious rule was one and the same so the government officials and religious officials worked together to decide what the masses should believe and what scriptures to accept as truth. During the twelve councils on Constantinople (google it because the writings can get long), were councils comprosed of government sanctioned officials., bishops and arch bishops representating various demographics of the Empire, to make decisions on how scriptures were to be interpreted as to the runnings of the church.

Meanwhile among Judaism, there were Rabbinical councils interpreting the Torah, developing the Tamlud and Midrash.

When Martin Luther brought new interpretations onto the scene, he was executed for his discenting beliefs in the established Roman church and with his death as a myrter, his followers formed the Luthern denomination which also since divided into "synods" or regions of such that vary quite a bit in how the church is run.

Then along came other Protest-ant faiths behind Lutheranism.

And the list goes on.

Although there was much contention and a whole lot of bloodshed amound humankind over the "interpretation" of scriptures, I doubt people of logic thought of it as what was ultimately truth and ultimately falsehood. It was about how scriptures were interpreted to run the church which was synominous with government which equaled the positioning for power.

Although I do have a formal education, it does not take a sheepskin on the wall to learn about religious history. Just a willingness to learn and seek out the knowledge. Today you can learn a lot online which often makes we wonder why I spent all that money.

In any event, I believe that Joseph Smith was just one of those people. Young, inquisitive, a strong desire to open his mind and learn, and accept and have faith even in the face of strong opposition. The work he was called to do was indeed his calling. Personally I find it amazing that Joseph accomplished all that he did without any help from Google or Wikipedia. Then again, that is where faith comes in. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you accept the logic that the Bible is a collection of suspect works, then I would think you would understand that the Book of Mormon is also suspect. We can give Joseph Smith all the credit he deserves, even with his lack of formal schooling, but we can't forget that he translated from many authors as well.

I'll grant you this much: I would agree that Mormon, as general editor, has a specific agenda; and that he's writing in furtherance of that agenda. That doesn't necessarily mean that what He chose to write was wrong; but I think it would probably be fair to say that a lot of Mormon's contemporaries--or even a modern-day historian with access to the same sources Mormon had available--may not have chosen to interpret specific instances of Nephite history through the same lens that Mormon chose to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mormon, as general editor, has a specific agenda; and that he's writing in furtherance of that agenda [but others] may not have chosen to interpret specific instances of Nephite history through the same lens that Mormon chose to.

I suppose so, but does it matter? No. Of course not.

What Mormon and his son decided to include in the text and the interpretation of such is up to the reader and what the reader's understanding of the gospel is.

So, why then did Mormon include what he did? Does Mormon say? In my mind, he was inspired meaning he received prophetic inspiration to include what he did and then to seal away for latter inspection what was unimportant for Joseph's inspection. This is my opinion.

As a Latter-day Saint, I feel revelation is important for both the voices in scripture, the editors (ancient and contemporary) and the reader to understand and prioritize the text.

If revelation and inspiration are excluded for any reason, then the reader must rely on the lenses they have (either social, philosophical, learned and/or institutional) to understand and interpret the Book of Mormon much like they must with any text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth has always been relative to our positions and to claim that we have all truth is too pretentious and arrogant for me. Statements of arrogance generally alienate, rather than invite a discussion for shared truth.

We know truth when our mind conforms with the way things are. And the way things are is not relative or ambiguous, that is why it can be shared, but an individual mind may very well be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my favorite scripture books is the Gospel of John in the New Testament. This is because of the many debates Jesus has with the Pharisees. In reality the Pharisees argued the truth of doctrines and ideas whereas Jesus argued goodness, compassion and love reflected in behavior.

I see the parable of the Good Samaritan as one of the most classic examples of Jesus placing love and compassion above "doctrine". Logically I can go into great detail and break down this very interesting parable and point out how very cleaver and intellectual I can be - but that is the very point the parable is intended to criticize.

To be honest this is somewhat embarrassing for me. Logic is my passion. Having to deal with "people" is always frustrating. When it cones to scripture discussion I find that even when I am convinced that I am right and so much smarter, especially smarter than those that seem to lack logic and seem to be locked into emotional concepts that are for lack of a better term "undefensible". But then I realize that it is my intellectuality that scripture criticizes most.

And so it is that to me the greatest danger in interpreting scripture is thinking you already know the answers to the most important questions.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so it is that to me the greatest danger in interpreting scripture is thinking you already know the answers to the most important questions.

That's why Jesus wanted it left to the professionals.

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost...We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts." -- Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know truth when our mind conforms with the way things are. And the way things are is not relative or ambiguous, that is why it can be shared, but an individual mind may very well be.

You have to define what you mean by "mind". The "mind" can include the influence of the corrupted and fallen brain whose job, in part, is to imagine, fill in the blanks with artificial information and to misunderstand information. This is why we try to separate talking about the spirit from the body influences as Paul did as opposed to using such a vague term as the "mind".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why Jesus wanted it left to the professionals.

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost...We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts." -- Peter

????

The professionals when Jesus walked the earth were the Pharisees - More than anyone on earth - they "understood" and used the scriptures -- to put the Christ to death.

In the parable of the "Good Samaritan" the professionals were the priests and levies -- The least qualified in interpreting scripture (according to the Jews) were the Samaritans.

Maybe it is your "private" interpretation of the scriptures is flawed.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to define what you mean by "mind". The "mind" can include the influence of the corrupted and fallen brain whose job, in part, is to imagine, fill in the blanks with artificial information and to misunderstand information. This is why we try to separate talking about the spirit from the body influences as Paul did as opposed to using such a vague term as the "mind".

Yes, but you are using your mind to make that separation, which is like reading Braille with superabundantly warty fingers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The professionals when Jesus walked the earth were the Pharisees - More than anyone on earth - they "understood" and used the scriptures -- to put the Christ to death.

And a good thing they did that, too! Alma 11:42 Now, there is a death which is called a temporal death; and the death of Christ shall loose the bands of this temporal death, that all shall be raised from this temporal death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share