TastyWheat
New Member
Yeah, but they didn't believe in "Heaven" as we hellenists do.
Huge mistake with origins of Catholicism.
- Thread starter Jango
- Start date
I think the views that Paul was trying to express is that man has a sin nature at birth, meaning when they have the ability to reason and think for themselves, they will sin, it's inevitable, only a matter of time.
Like a ticking time bomb.
And yes, we are qualified to call something blasphemous.
We are supposed to tell truth, are we not? If someone used God's name in vain, would that not be blasphemous? It would, and if someone did it here, they'd get a reprimand because the admins realize that it's blasphemy, according to the word. We ARE qualified, as the children of the Most High.
Like a ticking time bomb.
And yes, we are qualified to call something blasphemous.
We are supposed to tell truth, are we not? If someone used God's name in vain, would that not be blasphemous? It would, and if someone did it here, they'd get a reprimand because the admins realize that it's blasphemy, according to the word. We ARE qualified, as the children of the Most High.
TastyWheat
New Member
You say it is inevitable for one to sin; how could that be unless they were already inclined toward that sin? This is through sin nature, making them guilty before they are born. If we weren't destined to have a sin nature, surely someone would pop out and choose not to sin.
Ephesians 2:3
John 3:5-6
Psalm 51:5 especially - "Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me."
Wesley's commentary on Psalm 51:5: "Behold - Nor is this the only sin which I have reason to bewail before thee; for this filthy stream leads me to a corrupt fountain: and upon a review of my heart, I find, that this heinous crime, was the proper fruit of my vile nature, which, ever was, and still is ready to commit ten thousand sins, as occasion offers."
Charles H. Spurgeon's commentary on Psalm 51:5: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity. He is thunderstruck at the discovery of his inbred sin, and proceeds to set it forth. This was not intended to justify himself, but it rather meant to complete the confession. It is as if he said, not only have I sinned this once, but I am in my very nature a sinner. The fountain of my life is polluted as well as its streams. My birth tendencies are out of the square of equity; I naturally lean to forbidden things. Mine is a constitutional disease, rendering my very person obnoxious to thy wrath. And in sin did my mother conceive me. He goes back to the earliest moment of his being, not to traduce his mother, but to acknowledge the deep tap roots of his sin. It is a wicked wresting of Scripture to deny that original sin and natural depravity are here taught. Surely men who cavil at this doctrine have need to be taught of the Holy Spirit what be the first principles of the faith. David's mother was the Lord's handmaid, he was born in chaste wedlock, of a good father, and he was himself, "the man after God's own heart; "and yet his nature was as fallen as that of any other son of Adam, and there only needed the occasion for the manifesting of that sad fact. In our shaping we were put out of shape, and when we were conceived our nature conceived sin. Alas, for poor humanity! Those who will may cry it up, but he is most blessed who in his own soul has learned to lament his lost estate."
Ephesians 2:3
John 3:5-6
Psalm 51:5 especially - "Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me."
Wesley's commentary on Psalm 51:5: "Behold - Nor is this the only sin which I have reason to bewail before thee; for this filthy stream leads me to a corrupt fountain: and upon a review of my heart, I find, that this heinous crime, was the proper fruit of my vile nature, which, ever was, and still is ready to commit ten thousand sins, as occasion offers."
Charles H. Spurgeon's commentary on Psalm 51:5: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity. He is thunderstruck at the discovery of his inbred sin, and proceeds to set it forth. This was not intended to justify himself, but it rather meant to complete the confession. It is as if he said, not only have I sinned this once, but I am in my very nature a sinner. The fountain of my life is polluted as well as its streams. My birth tendencies are out of the square of equity; I naturally lean to forbidden things. Mine is a constitutional disease, rendering my very person obnoxious to thy wrath. And in sin did my mother conceive me. He goes back to the earliest moment of his being, not to traduce his mother, but to acknowledge the deep tap roots of his sin. It is a wicked wresting of Scripture to deny that original sin and natural depravity are here taught. Surely men who cavil at this doctrine have need to be taught of the Holy Spirit what be the first principles of the faith. David's mother was the Lord's handmaid, he was born in chaste wedlock, of a good father, and he was himself, "the man after God's own heart; "and yet his nature was as fallen as that of any other son of Adam, and there only needed the occasion for the manifesting of that sad fact. In our shaping we were put out of shape, and when we were conceived our nature conceived sin. Alas, for poor humanity! Those who will may cry it up, but he is most blessed who in his own soul has learned to lament his lost estate."
I'm a sinner, yes, but do I sin every moment of the day? NO. There are times when I don't sin. There are times when I do.
You're telling me a baby comes out of the womb sinning, or sins while in the womb?
I've seen this commentary used time and time again, and I earnestly believe you're all missing the point.
The point is your NATURE is to sin, but you aren't SINNING ALL THE TIME.
Babies are inclined to want their mothers at birth, their mother's milk, that's their NATURE, they aren't born sucking on a nipple, they gotta get there first.. I need to eat to live, that is the NATURE of my body. It's what I'm inclined to do to live.
I'm inclined to sin more often than not, but I have the ability to resist it, therefore I am not sinning ALL THE TIME.
God cannot convict me of a sin I have not commited, just like you cannot convict someone of murder if they DIDN'T KILL ANYONE.
Just because something has a nature or tendency to do something does not mean they are already "guilty" of doing what their nature tells them to do. If they HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING, they CANNOT BE GUILTY OF IT.
Is that so hard to understand?
You're telling me a baby comes out of the womb sinning, or sins while in the womb?
I've seen this commentary used time and time again, and I earnestly believe you're all missing the point.
The point is your NATURE is to sin, but you aren't SINNING ALL THE TIME.
Babies are inclined to want their mothers at birth, their mother's milk, that's their NATURE, they aren't born sucking on a nipple, they gotta get there first.. I need to eat to live, that is the NATURE of my body. It's what I'm inclined to do to live.
I'm inclined to sin more often than not, but I have the ability to resist it, therefore I am not sinning ALL THE TIME.
God cannot convict me of a sin I have not commited, just like you cannot convict someone of murder if they DIDN'T KILL ANYONE.
Just because something has a nature or tendency to do something does not mean they are already "guilty" of doing what their nature tells them to do. If they HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING, they CANNOT BE GUILTY OF IT.
Is that so hard to understand?
TastyWheat
New Member
First, calm down. If you want to have an intellectual discussion, you can do so without the use of your caps lock button.
Second, I understand what you're saying. However, there is a big distinction between Sin (noun) and the act of sinning (verb). You seem to be constantly harping on the fact that a baby cannot sin (verb). Regardless, the presence of Sin (noun) is in the child, and that is enough for the child to deserve hell. His Sin nature has not begun to be healed by Christ, thus he is in a state of depravity.
I need you to answer a question for me, either yes or no - nothing more.
Do you believe in original Sin, the noun?
Second, I understand what you're saying. However, there is a big distinction between Sin (noun) and the act of sinning (verb). You seem to be constantly harping on the fact that a baby cannot sin (verb). Regardless, the presence of Sin (noun) is in the child, and that is enough for the child to deserve hell. His Sin nature has not begun to be healed by Christ, thus he is in a state of depravity.
I need you to answer a question for me, either yes or no - nothing more.
Do you believe in original Sin, the noun?
Your insulting comments are not appreciated.
The caps lock was meant to emphasize a certain part or parts of something I said, don't make assumptions.
And ....
No, sin cannot be within him if he has not commited sin. If he can't inherit sin, then it is not there.
The nature TO sin is there, surely, but the sin itself has yet to come onto this child.
The caps lock was meant to emphasize a certain part or parts of something I said, don't make assumptions.
And ....
No, sin cannot be within him if he has not commited sin. If he can't inherit sin, then it is not there.
The nature TO sin is there, surely, but the sin itself has yet to come onto this child.
Jango
New Member
Your emotions are clouding your mind. We are born into sin.
If you are right, explain[b said:
[b said:
Though I will not comply with your request for a simple yes or no, for I have learned those are the two easiest answers that can be torn to shreds and make you look like an idiot, I will answer you in a full context, that way you can not make me out to be a fool.
To answer your latter question:
The verses in Romans that supposedly gives the doctrine of original sin are as follows, and if I missed one, feel free to point it out, but it will make little difference in the arguement I'm about to state.
Now, I could see how if you totally went and misconstrued all of these verses into something else, that you could pull a dastardly thing such as Original Sin out of it.
Not once did Paul say, "okay, all of the people of the earth for all time will suffer from Adam's sin." If anything, he SEPARATED the two as much as possible, as if to SHOW that we do not have to fall into the same faults that Adam did.
The only thing that Paul really stated was that the human race inherited DEATH from Adam, nothing more, nothing less. To Paul, Adam was an individual, not a representative of our whole race, as Jesus also was to him, not a representative of all our human race, but one individual who saves us all personally --- the last "Adam".
Yes, the beginning of the passage usually related to original sin (Romans 5), because Adam does seem to represent the whole human race, the focus quickly shifts to Adam being an individual, NOT representative of the human race as a whole, but for himself. Ezk. 18:20 complys with that thought.
Also, where this supposed "original sin" came from, there is no sign of it whatsoever in Genesis, where it was supposed to begin!
Also, the verses that are so commonly cited in Psalms are nothing more than literary exaggerations, just like other psalms in the same book are. There are just as many, if not many more, verses citing the goodness of man!
Yet you never see people citing these to create a doctrine of the inclined GOODNESS of man, because we realize it's a literary device used to get a point across. There should be, and IS no difference in the other writings of the psalmist.
As a writer, I can verify that exaggerations get the point across better. Which sounds better? "God is good," or "Oh God, thou art brighter than the stars, from my birth you were upon my soul, I could feel you breathe life into me, holding me up like an angel on high."
The latter is spicier, draws more attention, and seems to exhort our Lord more for His great deeds. Yet it means the SAME THING. Does it imply I'm saved, either way? No, not unless you go and take the exaggeration and blow it out of proportion (where else is this done....Hmmm.....With original sin!)
The point behind Paul's discussion of the Fall was not to imply the inherent sin in every human at birth, but to contrast the difference between Adam and Christ --- Death and Life, respectively.
Van
To answer your latter question:
The verses in Romans that supposedly gives the doctrine of original sin are as follows, and if I missed one, feel free to point it out, but it will make little difference in the arguement I'm about to state.
[b said:
Now, I could see how if you totally went and misconstrued all of these verses into something else, that you could pull a dastardly thing such as Original Sin out of it.
Not once did Paul say, "okay, all of the people of the earth for all time will suffer from Adam's sin." If anything, he SEPARATED the two as much as possible, as if to SHOW that we do not have to fall into the same faults that Adam did.
The only thing that Paul really stated was that the human race inherited DEATH from Adam, nothing more, nothing less. To Paul, Adam was an individual, not a representative of our whole race, as Jesus also was to him, not a representative of all our human race, but one individual who saves us all personally --- the last "Adam".
Yes, the beginning of the passage usually related to original sin (Romans 5), because Adam does seem to represent the whole human race, the focus quickly shifts to Adam being an individual, NOT representative of the human race as a whole, but for himself. Ezk. 18:20 complys with that thought.
Also, where this supposed "original sin" came from, there is no sign of it whatsoever in Genesis, where it was supposed to begin!
Also, the verses that are so commonly cited in Psalms are nothing more than literary exaggerations, just like other psalms in the same book are. There are just as many, if not many more, verses citing the goodness of man!
[b said:
Yet you never see people citing these to create a doctrine of the inclined GOODNESS of man, because we realize it's a literary device used to get a point across. There should be, and IS no difference in the other writings of the psalmist.
As a writer, I can verify that exaggerations get the point across better. Which sounds better? "God is good," or "Oh God, thou art brighter than the stars, from my birth you were upon my soul, I could feel you breathe life into me, holding me up like an angel on high."
The latter is spicier, draws more attention, and seems to exhort our Lord more for His great deeds. Yet it means the SAME THING. Does it imply I'm saved, either way? No, not unless you go and take the exaggeration and blow it out of proportion (where else is this done....Hmmm.....With original sin!)
The point behind Paul's discussion of the Fall was not to imply the inherent sin in every human at birth, but to contrast the difference between Adam and Christ --- Death and Life, respectively.
Van
Jango, no emotions are on my mind right now, for reasons I'd rather not discuss -- I'm far detatched from anything as trivial as sadness or anger at the moment, I'm in a place of peace and focus, and it is only reason I have returned to continue this debate, because God has put it on my heart to show that I will not back down, and that His truth will come to light. I have much respect for you, and I do thank you for even bothering to consider that I might be emotional -- thank you, though you need not worry for me, for I'm perfectly fine.
Now, I do have to ask that you not take verses out of context, even one so famous and endearing as Romans 3:23, which is one in our path of salvation.
The very first verse of this states that man isn't even aware of his sin, and how can one be convicted then to salvation if they are not aware of their sin. The law gives knowledge of the sin in one's life, and I find it extremely unfair of a Just God to condemn a small child for a sin it did not commit, without it ever having the opportunity to realize its own sin. Verse 21 just states that the law is a witness to the righteousness of God. It continues on to verse 23, which is the disputed verse at the moment. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”. Already, Paul has made a distinction of people to be judged -- those cognisant enough to realize their sin through the Law or by some other means of God's power. A baby is hardly aware of anything slight of their mother's body heat, their mother in general, and their family. They haven't yet the reasoning enough to tell right from wrong, or even to commit a sin. The rest of the verses confirm the repitious value of decision.
Now, something that just caught my eye as I was going to wrap this up....The word “forebearance” as used in verse 25.
The act of forbearing.
1.Tolerance and restraint in the face of provocation; patience.
2.The quality of being forbearing.
3.Law. The act of a creditor who refrains from enforcing a debt when it falls due.
The first definition gives a portrait of our God, slow to anger, slow to wrath, patient and longsuffering. The second, self explainatory, the third....The third starts with the plain word, “Law.” Sorta ironic. The ACT of a creditor who REFRAINS from enforcing a debt when it falls due. Very amazing, seeing how we owe a debt to God, I just find it ironic that this suddenly pops up in this topic. I think this is just a witness to God's forgiving, understanding nature.
Glory to God, thank you for your time.
Now, I do have to ask that you not take verses out of context, even one so famous and endearing as Romans 3:23, which is one in our path of salvation.
(I will gladly give more context if needed, but I felt this was sufficient.)[b said:
The very first verse of this states that man isn't even aware of his sin, and how can one be convicted then to salvation if they are not aware of their sin. The law gives knowledge of the sin in one's life, and I find it extremely unfair of a Just God to condemn a small child for a sin it did not commit, without it ever having the opportunity to realize its own sin. Verse 21 just states that the law is a witness to the righteousness of God. It continues on to verse 23, which is the disputed verse at the moment. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”. Already, Paul has made a distinction of people to be judged -- those cognisant enough to realize their sin through the Law or by some other means of God's power. A baby is hardly aware of anything slight of their mother's body heat, their mother in general, and their family. They haven't yet the reasoning enough to tell right from wrong, or even to commit a sin. The rest of the verses confirm the repitious value of decision.
Now, something that just caught my eye as I was going to wrap this up....The word “forebearance” as used in verse 25.
The act of forbearing.
1.Tolerance and restraint in the face of provocation; patience.
2.The quality of being forbearing.
3.Law. The act of a creditor who refrains from enforcing a debt when it falls due.
The first definition gives a portrait of our God, slow to anger, slow to wrath, patient and longsuffering. The second, self explainatory, the third....The third starts with the plain word, “Law.” Sorta ironic. The ACT of a creditor who REFRAINS from enforcing a debt when it falls due. Very amazing, seeing how we owe a debt to God, I just find it ironic that this suddenly pops up in this topic. I think this is just a witness to God's forgiving, understanding nature.
Glory to God, thank you for your time.
LionOfJudah
Member, Dreamcast Fishing Guru
van before telling others not to take verse out of context, why not heed your own advice with the stunt you tryed to pull from Gen 18.....
Honestly i am trying to wash my hands of this subject, because it is a trival subject, and really does not matter to my salvation or to others, because God is God and I am not, and He will do whatever He likes whether or not we agree with it, and i have stated many times with verses, and now you just want to use circular arguments to defend your thinking. God is a loving and Just God, but there is no scripturual proof that Babies go to heaven, just as there is none that says they go to hell.
Honestly i am trying to wash my hands of this subject, because it is a trival subject, and really does not matter to my salvation or to others, because God is God and I am not, and He will do whatever He likes whether or not we agree with it, and i have stated many times with verses, and now you just want to use circular arguments to defend your thinking. God is a loving and Just God, but there is no scripturual proof that Babies go to heaven, just as there is none that says they go to hell.
*lol* Circular reasoning? I've been bringing in new material, new examples, and new Scriptural backup since I jumped onto this discussion, on the other hand, the majority of the posts on this topic HAVE been circular, repeating the over-used, out of context verses that are so often used to protect the blasphemous idea of a baby being sent to hell.
And if I hear you say I was of context one more time, I might pop. Genesis 18 is INDEED an example of God's grace and righteousness. Lion, I'm not sure what you were trying to start by implying it was out of context, but it was totally relevent, and I suggest you retract your statement that it was out of context, for it was not.
And if I hear you say I was of context one more time, I might pop. Genesis 18 is INDEED an example of God's grace and righteousness. Lion, I'm not sure what you were trying to start by implying it was out of context, but it was totally relevent, and I suggest you retract your statement that it was out of context, for it was not.
In the words of someone, who will remain anonymous...
Paraphrased, because I closed the I/M, but will retain the meaning.
Anony: Oh, and the only unpardonable sin is rejecting Christ. If someone never gets a chance to reject Christ or accept Christ, they can't be sent to hell. End of discussion. Boom.
La.
Paraphrased, because I closed the I/M, but will retain the meaning.
Anony: Oh, and the only unpardonable sin is rejecting Christ. If someone never gets a chance to reject Christ or accept Christ, they can't be sent to hell. End of discussion. Boom.
La.
TastyWheat
New Member
Ok...with regards to the Caps lock, I thought you were doing it to be sarcastic. So for that I apologize.
But, with regards to your other arguments...I'm gonna have to go with Paul, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley on this one. It's unfortunate that you've chosen to follow Pelagius.
I've done what I've set out to do, so I guess I don't have anything else to argue about.
But, with regards to your other arguments...I'm gonna have to go with Paul, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley on this one. It's unfortunate that you've chosen to follow Pelagius.
I've done what I've set out to do, so I guess I don't have anything else to argue about.
I take that extremely personally, sir, and I seriously hope you were just in a bad mood when you posted that, either that, or you don't know your history too great...Or something. Beats me. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
The beliefs of Pelagius are as follows.
#1 Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
#2 Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
#3 Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
#4 The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
#5 The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
#6 Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin
I never once claimed a single bloody one of those, never even slightly came CLOSE to any of those, and I seriously suggest the retraction of that statement and direct insult to me, if you would so kindly sir, either that, or if you still disagree, explain yourself fully.
The beliefs of Pelagius are as follows.
#1 Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
#2 Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
#3 Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
#4 The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
#5 The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
#6 Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin
I never once claimed a single bloody one of those, never even slightly came CLOSE to any of those, and I seriously suggest the retraction of that statement and direct insult to me, if you would so kindly sir, either that, or if you still disagree, explain yourself fully.
TastyWheat
New Member
Ok...the logical premise I'm using here is the fact that you can't really be semi-Pelagian. You're either Pelagian or not. I've dealt with this argument the last two years of my life with the accusation that Wesleyans and Catholics are semi-Pelagian, so yes, I do know what I'm talking about.
I've accused you of being a Pelagian based on the summation of all your ideas. If you'd like one statement that says it the best, though, it is this one: "No, sin cannot be within him if he has not commited sin. If he can't inherit sin, then it is not there. The nature TO sin is there, surely, but the sin itself has yet to come onto this child."
In this quote, you've decided that within a child there is no sin. Here you've accepted point 3 as a starting point - "Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall." There is a logical path following this one; you can't hit all the points because the first and last are pretty wild, but anyway...
So, from point 3 we're led to point 2. If you say that a child is born without the sin nature, then you're saying that he isn't affected by the fallenness of Adam. This consequently leads to 4 - If Adam's sin hasn't affected us, then our death is not because of his sin. The second part of point 4 also follows - if there was nothing wrong with the first Adam, then the work of the 2nd Adam (Christ) is moot. Well, what happens if the work of Christ is moot? The Atonement story is nothing special, and point 5 comes in.
Points 1 and 6 I can't logically connect to the rest, but if the council of Nicea could do it, then I'm sure there's a way. I mean, Augustine may have had a super-reactionary theology, but when you're dealing with a guy who says there's no such thing as original sin, you're left with few choices. One amazing question Augustine had which revealed Pelagius' inconsistencies was, "If a child is born without sin, then why do we have no other documented cases of perfect people except for Jesus?" Pelagius' answer was ridiculously non-scriptural and illogical.
Look, I'm not personally attacking you, so please stop thinking I am. But my overall point is...this argument is nothing new. They dealt with the problem before the first half of the 5th Century...so why are we still dealing with it?
I've accused you of being a Pelagian based on the summation of all your ideas. If you'd like one statement that says it the best, though, it is this one: "No, sin cannot be within him if he has not commited sin. If he can't inherit sin, then it is not there. The nature TO sin is there, surely, but the sin itself has yet to come onto this child."
In this quote, you've decided that within a child there is no sin. Here you've accepted point 3 as a starting point - "Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall." There is a logical path following this one; you can't hit all the points because the first and last are pretty wild, but anyway...
So, from point 3 we're led to point 2. If you say that a child is born without the sin nature, then you're saying that he isn't affected by the fallenness of Adam. This consequently leads to 4 - If Adam's sin hasn't affected us, then our death is not because of his sin. The second part of point 4 also follows - if there was nothing wrong with the first Adam, then the work of the 2nd Adam (Christ) is moot. Well, what happens if the work of Christ is moot? The Atonement story is nothing special, and point 5 comes in.
Points 1 and 6 I can't logically connect to the rest, but if the council of Nicea could do it, then I'm sure there's a way. I mean, Augustine may have had a super-reactionary theology, but when you're dealing with a guy who says there's no such thing as original sin, you're left with few choices. One amazing question Augustine had which revealed Pelagius' inconsistencies was, "If a child is born without sin, then why do we have no other documented cases of perfect people except for Jesus?" Pelagius' answer was ridiculously non-scriptural and illogical.
Look, I'm not personally attacking you, so please stop thinking I am. But my overall point is...this argument is nothing new. They dealt with the problem before the first half of the 5th Century...so why are we still dealing with it?
I quickly need to respond to the thing that caught my eye first ---
no, I do not agree with the third point given.
I never said they were as Adam was before the Fall. Adam had no nature to sin, he was PERFECT. Until he was deceived by Satan -- you know the story.
That child had a tendency to sin, though it had not yet sinned. That's all I'm saying, I'm not implying anything else WHEN I say that. It's just as it stands.
no, I do not agree with the third point given.
I never said they were as Adam was before the Fall. Adam had no nature to sin, he was PERFECT. Until he was deceived by Satan -- you know the story.
That child had a tendency to sin, though it had not yet sinned. That's all I'm saying, I'm not implying anything else WHEN I say that. It's just as it stands.
LionOfJudah
Member, Dreamcast Fishing Guru
Gensis 18 is talking about Gods wraith against Sodom and Gomorah, and the "grace" that you mention is only because Abraham knew Lot was in one of the cities and was pleading for his life. God with full knowledge of both Cities told him if he could find even 10 righteous He would spare the cities. God being God knew there would not be even that many. So how exactly do you get grace from this one verse that you have taken wildly out of context? what are your resources your own mind, or are you using various commentaries like Tasty.
by the way when it comes to context i use
From Paradise to Promise land
History of the Old Testament.
Too books i had to buy for school, i use those and my concordence to cross check the languages, i also use my handy dandy
E-sword which has many commentaries built into it and many translations.
by the way when it comes to context i use
From Paradise to Promise land
History of the Old Testament.
Too books i had to buy for school, i use those and my concordence to cross check the languages, i also use my handy dandy
E-sword which has many commentaries built into it and many translations.
Master~Plan
New Member
verse?[b said: