A brother in the Lord asked if I would discuss dispensationalism and Zechariah 14 with a blogger who owns a bible prophecy website.  I gladly accepted the inviation and will provide to the reader the discussion as it occurred..  I have changed the web site owners name to “Brother” for the sake of his privacy, and each of my responses are italicized and indented for clarity sake.

Brother

Wow – a bit surprised by your comment.

I assumed that the cleansing of sin in Zech, due to your association of its description in the same context as the second coming of Jesus, would have the cleansing effect as described after the crucifixion, and not merely a ceremonial act. Hebrews mentions, not a ceremonial washing, but the actual sacrifices given in the old covenant, as being insufficient to “make the comers thereunto perfect”  If the sacrifices were not able, how much less a ceremonial washing?

Hebrews 10:1
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

(It would seem foolhardy to return to a shadow when the body is present!)

During my drive home tonight from work I was thinking about the original verse under consideration in context – Zech 14:3-5 – which states

3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

Verse 5 states “and ye shall flee…”

Who is fleeing?  If this is the second coming, all the Lords enemies will be destroyed, all the saved will be with the Lord, and if the mountain is cleft from east to west, any bystanders (who would be left?) will be destroyed by the techonic action.

And what are they fleeing from?  Obviously, if this is the second coming, the lost will be destroyed, the saved will be with the Lord and who else is there?

Have a great weekend!

Please visit next time as we continue to discuss issues that arise between my dispensational friend and myself.

Thanks for visiting and as always, I love getting comments from those who read this blog.

Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com

Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.

A brother in the Lord asked if I would discuss dispensationalism and Zechariah 14 with a blogger who owns a bible prophecy website.  I gladly accepted the inviation and will provide to the reader the discussion as it occurred..  I have changed the web site owners name to “Brother” for the sake of his privacy, and each of my responses are italicized and indented for clarity sake.

Sin is often a misunderstood concept.  I know it can mean a range of things, from “missing the mark” to “debt”.  Can literal water cleanse that?  Also, many of the “do nots”, resulted in the condition of being “unclean” until washing in literal water, which did fix the uncleanness.

So, literal water was not a spiritual thing, but actual instructions for washing the physical flesh.

When a people decided to obey the Bible literally, say, in the USA about 100 years ago, and actually wash, diseases that had unknown causes began to go away, particularly infant sepsis.

See, doctors would open dead bodies doing autopsies, and then help mothers deliver babies, without washing, and moms and babies were dying at a rate of like 9%, which is high, and they did not know the source was dirty bacteria that could be eliminated simply by hand washing in water.

So, does literal water cleanse sin?  Often, YES!

Furthermore, are our waters impure?  Often, YES!

And this water is specifically stated that it is “for Jerusalem”, it is not “for the world” which it would be if it were some sort of spiritual water, therefore, I see it as literal.

Why would you have a problem with those waters being literal?

Didn’t God cause a literal stream of literal water to come from the rock that Moses struck?

Didn’t one of the prophets instruct a man to wash himself in the Jordan River 7 times to become clean, and even though the Jordan was not the cleanest river, still, it worked?

Sincerely,

Brother

Please visit next time as we continue to discuss issues that arise between my dispensational friend and myself.

Thanks for visiting and as always, I love getting comments from those who read this blog.

Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com

Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.

A brother in the Lord asked if I would discuss dispensationalism and Zechariah 14 with a blogger who owns a bible prophecy website.  I gladly accepted the inviation and will provide to the reader the discussion as it occurred..  I have changed the web site owners name to “Brother” for the sake of his privacy, and each of my responses are italicized and indented for clarity sake.

Brother

Thanks for such a quick response!  I am really enjoying our discussion!  Let us continue.

If you take the landing of Jesus literally, please consider this

Zech 13:1 states “a fountain will be opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for impurity”

If we understand the fountain literally, the natural conclusion would be that the fountain waters cleanse from sin.

Would this be acceptable to you, and if not, on what basis do you reject the fountain as being literally able to cleanse from sin, but accept “And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives”, as the physical return of Christ

As an aside, notice that it does not say that He lands on the mount, or descends on the mount, or even that he climbs the mount to get to the top.

Thanks again, and have a great day!

Carl

Please visit next time as we continue to discuss issues that arise between my dispensational friend and myself.

Thanks for visiting and as always, I love getting comments from those who read this blog.

Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com

Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.

A brother in the Lord asked if I would discuss dispensationalism and Zechariah 14 with a blogger who owns a bible prophecy website.  I gladly accepted the inviation and will provide to the reader the discussion as it occurred..  I have changed the web site owners name to “Brother” for the sake of his privacy, and each of my responses are italicized and indented for clarity sake.

I believe you ask very good questions.  Some of the best I’ve ever heard asked!  To what intent does the prophets say “god treads on the mountains”?  I must reply I know of many possible intentions, and I know that God often teaches mankind through parallels, examples, similitude’s, and first doing things in the natural, and then the spiritual.

For example, when Adam and Eve sinned, God gave them animal skins, not Levi’s.  Thus, there was an “animal sacrifice” from the beginning to teach of death, and consequences of sin, and that a sacrifice can provide a covering for sin.  As we now know, 6000 years later, Jesus’s death for us provides for us white robes that cover our sins.

What is being communicated that God walks on the mounts?  Good question.   I can only guess and make an educated Biblical guess, in fitting with all other scriptures and doctrines.  what is your guess?

I have walked on mountaintops.  Have you?  What did you see and feel?  I see a great view all around; it’s not just “the outdoors”, but it’s an amazing feeling to see so much.  Often  you are exhausted when you get there.  I feel peace.  I feel humbled.  I feel exhilarated.  I feel an appreciation for the creation.  I often feel I can commune with God.

I was a skier.  We take a chairlift to mountaintops.  It’s not the same, but often, just a little bit similar, or only a bit less so.

One thing I have noticed about the outdoors is the sense of freedom, yet also, the sense of lack of security; without the comforts of civilization.  There is freedom, and fear.

There is also no slavery in nature.  Only man engages in debt slavery with one another.  Animals do not do such horrible things to one another.

But what do scriptures say about mountains?  They are often places of worship of God, or of false gods.  The “temple mount” in Jerusalem is a holy spot.  Moses saw the burning bush in the mountains, on holy ground.

Is God “mystical” and so “spiritual” that things can not be understood or  practical?

Our God is practical.  Idolatry is an affront because it is a useless waste of time, dishonors God, and is often used to pool money from misled people and steal from them, as they trust in a false idol rather than reality.

Jesus said about trees that do not bear fruit, to cut them to the ground.

Mountains are not very useful forms of land; the land is often unfit for human use, unfruitful, and in the sierras, the land behind the mountains is desert, since the mountains drain the precipitation out of the clouds as the clouds move up over the mountains, so the mountains also make large parts of the earth less useful.

Perhaps God intends to level the mountains, to make the earth more useful and fruitful?

Perhaps mountains are an affront to God, lifted up places that compete with the Glory of God.

Perhaps mountains represent fallen angels, who will be destroyed.

Perhaps mountains represent kingdoms of man, who will be destroyed.

Perhaps mountains are like temples of worship, like pyramids built in the shape of mountains.

Perhaps God will destroy not only the physical mountains, but all things like mountains, fallen angels, kingdoms, worthless land, worthless idols, etc.

There are video games where you can “terra form”.  Often, tearing down the mountains and filling the valleys lets you build a bigger city with more people.

I have often wondered if there would be any such thing as skiing on a mountain when God comes to restore the earth.  I don’t know.

But in no case can I use any sort of spiritual lesson or teaching to deny what the Bible or the prophets say.

God can, and usually does both, first the physical, then the spiritual.   If Jesus comes back to land on, and destroy a mountain, I believe the best interpretation is to take that literally, and to understand that the literal future fulfillment is the beginning of what will take place around the world, and in the spiritual fulfillment, as God will destroy all kingdoms set against him, as well, which we know he will do.

But in no case, is the spiritual interpretation to be used to deny the physical and literal, when there are no problems with the physical being fulfilled.

Brother

Please visit next time as we continue to discuss issues that arise between my dispensational friend and myself.

Thanks for visiting and as always, I love getting comments from those who read this blog.

Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com

Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.

A brother in the Lord asked if I would discuss dispensationalism and Zechariah 14 with a blogger who owns a bible prophecy website. I gladly acceptedx.,, cvnX n the inviation and will provide to the reader the discussion as it occurred.. I have changed the web site owners name to “Brother” for the sake of his privacy, and each of my responses are italicized and indented for clarity sake.

Genesis 10:25
And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.next subject.

Does God walk literally upon the mountains? I know not, nor do you. I live near a mountain. I know that nobody lives on top of the mountain, and the vast majority of the time, nobody is on top of the mountain. I know that Mt. Everest is desolate, and thus, there is nobody who lives near who could confirm or deny such a thing, therefore, the question is impossible to confirm or deny.

But even more, it is IMPOSSIBLE to deny!

As we know from scripture, Jesus, in resurrected form, appears to his disciples in ways that they cannot discern that it is even Jesus. The Bible also says that God is invisible.

Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

If an invisible God walks literally upon the mountains where there is nobody around, how in the world are you able to deny such a thing? You are completely incapable to say that God does not literally walk upon the mountains, and you are completely incapable of making a doctrine, or teaching, that God does not do such things, when the Bible clearly says that he does.

Be careful. It’s best to just believe scripture, rather than try to deny it. And if it requires the denial of scripture, then you are on very bad ground.

Sincerely,

Brother

Brother

In your last response you said – “Does God walk literally upon the mountains? I know not, nor do you. “Why does Amos say He does? Is it not to inform us of something?

In the original post, I believe you said that you expect Jesus to touch down on the Mt of Olives and because of this, that the mount would split (or something to that effect). This is the context of my discussion. Is the prophet Zechariah describing a literal touching of the mount with God’s literal feet? Correct me if I have read you wrong, but I think you would interpret Zechariah that Jesus would land/touch/set/stand/ etc on Mt of Olives in fulfillment of Zech 14. I merely brought Amos and Micah into the discussion to ask if these incidents are of the same literalness.

No one wants to deny the Word. I surely do not, and I am convinced you are striving to be faithful. Finding the intent of a scripture should not be construed as a denial of scripture if it rubs you or I the wrong way. Remember that the Word is to transform us, not us try to conform the Word (to our liking!)

I would agree the Bible clearly teaches that God “treads on the high places of the earth” and “the LORD cometh forth out of his place” and that He will “tread upon the high places of the earth” causing the mountains to be “molten under him” and the valleys “shall be cleft, as wax before the fire…”.(v4). My concern is to try to understand what the prophet was trying to communicate.
If, as you say, no one can deny or prove whether an invisible God walks on the mountains, to what point did the prophet tell us these things?

Next question

If we take Zechariah in a literal manner

Verse 8 – the “fountain of living waters,” Could this phrase represent a spiritual truth? Zech 13:1 states “a fountain will be opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for impurity”
If we understand the fountain literally, the natural conclusion would be that the waters cleanse from sin. Would this be acceptable to you, and if not, on what basis do you reject the fountain as being literally able to cleanse from sin, but accept “And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives”, as the physical return of Christ (Notice that it does not say that He lands on the mount, or descends on the mount, or even that he climbs the mount to get to the top.)

Please do not respond asking me if I believe in the physical return of Christ – I surely do and with every day expect it sooner and sooner!

Looking forward to your response

Be blessed

Please visit next time as we continue to discuss issues that arise between my dispensational friend and myself.

Thanks for visiting and as always, I love getting comments from those who read this blog.

Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com

Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.

A brother in the Lord asked if I would discuss dispensationalism and Zechariah 14 with a blogger who owns a bible prophecy website.  I gladly accepted the inviation and will provide to the reader the discussion as it occurred..  I have changed the web site owners name to “Brother” for the sake of his privacy, and each of my responses are italicized and indented for clarity sake.

Brother

I admit error in the Rev 19 passage concerning the trumpet. Thank you for noting it!  If we continue in the Word of God, our faith will increase, and this discussion will be fruitful.

When God judged the earth in the Flood, the geography changed significantly, God both raised up the land, and he separated the earth in the days of Peleg.  It would not surprise me if God changed the physical mountains in a restored earth, to level out much of the high places around the globe, by bringing down Mt. Everest to more reasonable levels of elevation, in fact, scripture hints at that very thing.  But yes, mountains can also mean spiritual strongholds.

Brother

I understand about the Flood issues, and that the topographic “adjustments” were a result of judgement.  It is certainly possible that this may happen. (I am not so sure about the Peleg thing, but that is immaterial!)

It is interesting that the mountain of the Lords house is referred to as being above the hills/mountains, not that the hills/mountains are lowered.  Laying waste to mountains and hills may refer to the bounty being produced on them being destroyed (see the next line where the Hebrew poetry commonly uses the second line to further explain the first line, ie the vegetation being dried up further explains “the mountains being laid waste”!), not that the mountains would be flattened.

Isa 2:12 merely states that the day of the Lord will “come upon everything high…, upon all the high mountains”.  This does not mention that the mountains are lowered, but that the day of the Lord will come upon the mountains –  whatever that means is not specifically mentioned (that I can see at least!)

Two quick questions for you to consider from our previous discussions

Amos 4:13 – God “treads on the high places of the earth”

1. • Does God literally walk on the mountains?

Micah 1:3-4 – states “the LORD cometh forth out of his place” and that He will “tread upon the high places of the earth” causing the mountains to be “molten under him” and the valleys “shall be cleft, as wax before the fire…”.(v4)

1. • Will God will literally come down out of heaven and walk on the high places causing the mountains to melt?

Thanks for the response – Able to get back to you during coffee break so it worked out well.  Looking forward to your next comments.

Be blessed.

Carl

Please visit next time as we continue to discuss issues that arise between my dispensational friend and myself.

Thanks for visiting and as always, I love getting comments from those who read this blog.

Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com

Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.

A brother in the Lord asked if I would discuss dispensationalism and Zechariah 14 with a blogger who owns a bible prophecy website.  I gladly accepted the inviation and will provide to the reader the discussion as it occurred..  I have changed the web site owners name to “Brother” for the sake of his privacy, and each of my responses are italicized and indented for clarity sake.

Is your standard Biblical, because it does not seem to me that you are consistent here in applying it.

I think you are asking me two questions here.

Biblical? – Since I am seeking to understand the apostolic method of interpreting the OT, I would hope that my methods are Biblical.

Consistent? – I may be (certainly AM) very much a novice at this, and with this admission, understand that consistency of application may be weak.  If you see a specific instance in which I am not interpreting a passage in light of its genre and context, a challenge would be most welcome.

In other words, you appear to be grasping at gnats, but swallowing a camel.

If I appear to be doing this, please give me an example from my previous texts.

Since you make a big issue over the “different” trump reference in 1 Thess 4 vs. 1 Cor 15, but the entire lack of a trumpet in Zech 14 and Rev 19 seems to not bother you at all, as if you are willing to “swallow” the idea that there is a trumpet in passages that do not mention it, and yet, claim that there is enough of a difference in the trumpet in 1 Thess 4, that it’s somehow significant of something?

Again, the issue (trump issue in 1 Thess and 1 Cor) is not a major point, simply an item to call to your attention for the sake of clarity.  I do not recall mentioning a trumpet with regards to Zech 14.  (That passage dealt with the topographic disturbance of the City of Jersusalem and the physical splitting of the Mount of Olives).  Rev 19, of course, has a trumpet mentioned within the text, but I do not recall the trump being an item of discussion within my message.

 Be blessed.

Please visit next time as we continue to discuss issues that arise between my dispensational friend and myself.

Thanks for visiting and as always, I love getting comments from those who read this blog.

Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com

Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.

A brother in the Lord asked if I would discuss dispensationalism and Zechariah 14 with a blogger who owns a bible prophecy website.  I gladly accepted the inviation and will provide to the reader the discussion as it occurred..  I have changed the web site owners name to “Brother” for the sake of his privacy, and each of my responses are italicized and indented for clarity sake.

I’m sorry, I’m the one who owes you an apology.  I did not see, I was blind, I did not see that you noted that passage DID mention the “trump of God”, but that your position had nuances that I did not detect right away.  More often than not, I get people who claim the text does not contain the words it does contain, and the debate is rather simple, yet they will still refuse to admit error.

I can see this discussion may be very good.  Now I will admit confusion further, as to the nature of how you reason and argue.

Repeatedly, you are saying to me to not “build doctrine on silence”, yet, when the text of 1 Thess is silent on the issue of whether the trumpet is sounding, you build upon that, and use that silence as somehow enough proof to discern a difference of significance.

Well, when do you apply your standard, and is your standard Biblical, because it does not seem to me that you are consistent here in applying it.  In other words, you appear to be grasping at gnats, but swallowing a camel.

Since you make a big issue over the “different” trump reference in 1 Thess 4 vs. 1 Cor 15, but the entire lack of a trumpet in Zech 14 and Rev 19 seems to not bother you at all, as if you are willing to “swallow” the idea that there is a trumpet in passages that do not mention it, and yet, claim that there is enough of a difference in the trumpet in 1 Thess 4, that it’s somehow significant of something?

Brother

I am glad that we can continue with our discussion.  I do hope that in the midst of our discussion you may see more than just comments on the Text, but a desire to edify and build each other up in the faith.

Now I will admit confusion further, as to the nature of how you reason and argue.  Repeatedly, you are saying to me to not “build doctrine on silence”,

Agreed

yet, when the text of 1 Thess is silent on the issue of whether the trumpet is sounding, you build upon that,

My intent is to point out that your comment “Both chapters also teach the resurrection and of the trumpet blast” is not accurate.  The second passage – (1 Thess) does not mention any noise from the trumpet.  Just that the Lord is “coming with… the trump of God”

and use that silence as somehow enough proof to discern a difference of significance.

The significance is minor, but I only sought to draw to your attention a point you may want to edit on your site.

Well, when do you apply your standard,

As to a standard to apply, I assume you are referring to my understanding passages within the Word.  I seek to be as literal as possible unless the context demands I consider a symbolic/poetic/spiritual interpretation.  You see, I was a very good dispensationalist for much of my Christian life.  One of the items I believed was that every prophecy of the first coming of the Lord Jesus in the OT was fulfilled literally in the NT.  I believed that passionately for many years.  I was so convinced that I assumed it was unassailable.  Then I began a study a few years back on how the apostles interpreted the OT showing the messianic fulfillment in Jesus.  This study began my reconsidering of my literalistic interpretive methods.

Please visit next time as we continue to discuss issues that arise between my dispensational friend and myself.

Thanks for visiting and as always, I love getting comments from those who read this blog.

Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com

Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.

A brother in the Lord asked if I would discuss dispensationalism and Zechariah 14 with a blogger who owns a bible prophecy website.  I gladly accepted the inviation and will provide to the reader the discussion as it occurred..  I have changed the web site owners name to “Brother” for the sake of his privacy, and each of my responses are italicized and indented for clarity sake.

I’m open to discussion to the extent that the Bible commands; I’m to try to be able to give a ready answer to all who ask for the reasons for my faith; and yet also, given the limited amount of time in life, I’m also directed to not waste time with people who are unworthy, or who are blind, or people who simply are not yet able to bear truth.

1 Corinthians 3:2  I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

That being said, to discern what kind of person you are, I have one basic question; why did you write the following:

RE: Disagree

1 Corinthians teaches that “the trumpet shall sound” and 1 Thessalonians that the Lord descends “with…the trump of God.”  Only 1 Cor specifically teaches the sounding of the trumpet.

Can you read the following, and why didn’t you see it, or do you have an explanation, or apology?  Or, how do you react when proven wrong?

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

See, it’s one thing to be ignorant, it’s another to be willfully ignorant.  In the first case, people just don’t know where in the Bible it teaches about the rapture.  In the second case, like yours, you have known for 30 years, and you specifically claim that the Bible does not say what it so clearly does.  What can explain that kind of willful blindness?  I’m very curious.

Sincerely, Brother

Brother – I am a little confused – the text in 1 Thessalonians is merely stating that the Lord is descending with the trump of God.  (He may be blowing it, but 1 Thessalonians doesn’t specifically say that! – As a matter of fact, 1 Corinthians doesn’t say that the Lord will be blowing the trump, just that the trump sounds …”at the last trump, for the trumpet shall sound”….)

I am a little confused about who I owe an apology to?  I asked you some questions because a brother informed me that you were open to discussion and debate.  (I find it very profitable to engage with believers in discussion to sharpen my own understanding.)  When I am proven wrong I would like to think I accept it.  (Admittedly, I sometimes become quiet, but eventually realize that truth is more important than my ego or traditions.)  If I have offended you or caused you any conflict, I will not continue this discussion.  If you would like to continue, please do so, understanding that my concern is – “What does the text say!”

In any case, may God bless you and draw you into His love.

Carl

Please visit next time as we continue to discuss issues that arise between my dispensational friend and myself.

Thanks for visiting and as always, I love getting comments from those who read this blog.

Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com

Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.

A brother in the Lord asked if I would discuss dispensationalism and Zechariah 14 with a blogger who owns a bible prophecy website.  I gladly accepted the inviation and will provide to the reader the discussion as it occurred..  I have changed the web site owners name to “Brother” for the sake of his privacy, and each of my responses are italicized and indented for clarity sake.

Revelation 19

Of the many methods of interpreting Revelation, you have opted for the “futuristic” method. 

What is going on in Revelation 6:1-2? Could this be a picture of the Christ going out to conquer?

What about Revelation 7:15 – 17? I bring this passage into the discussion only due to the reference to the living waters, which I believe you may associate with the millennial kingdom, after the return of Christ.

What is Revelation 11:15-19 describing? Could this be a picture of the return of Christ? How can you place the return of Christ in chapter 19, when it also seems to be taking place in Revelation 11

What about Revelation 14:14-16? It seems that if I were to take this passage literally, the earth will have been reaped by the end of this passage. This is usually associated with the second coming(?)

Although chapter 19 is commonly thought of as being a picture of the return of Christ (and I think it is, for whatever it is worth), these other passages also have some merit to them.

My point is this – Revelation is a book of the revelation of Christ, and is apocalyptic in nature, which demands that we look at each passage carefully, considering each argument. With so many (valid) interpretive methods for the book of Revelation, it seems unwise to depend on a debatable passage to build a highly detailed doctrine.(ie. the return of Christ after the tribulation. (There is no absolute time line given in Revelation, nor should we expect one, since it is written in a highly symbolic form.)

Carl

Please visit next time as we continue to discuss issues that arise between my dispensational friend and myself.

Thanks for visiting and as always, I love getting comments from those who read this blog.

Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com

Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.