Question ...

[Kbertsche]

You are misusing the 'dark glass' metaphor. That is used by Paul in Corinthians to describe the state of our SPIRITUAL understanding - and specifically the need for special spiritual gifts like prophesy - it does not refer to our capacity to understand the physical reality. You have completely turned the meaning upside down. It is Spiritual truths where we are magnificently prone to error, not our understanding of the physical. In fact, Jesus expressed exasperation several times over why it was possible for us to be so astute in regarding the physical, yet so blockheadedly stupid as regards the spiritual!

Jim

Here's an interesting note on the "dark glass" passage from the NET Bible:

Source: NET Bible Notes

1Corinthians 13:12 tn Grk “we are seeing through [= using] a mirror by means of a dark image.” Corinth was well known in the ancient world for producing some of the finest bronze mirrors available. Paul’s point in this analogy, then, is not that our current understanding and relationship with God is distorted (as if the mirror reflected poorly), but rather that it is “indirect,” (i.e., the nature of looking in a mirror) compared to the relationship we will enjoy with him in the future when we see him “face to face” (cf. G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 648)

© Copyright Original Source

So the implication of the Greek is that our view of Christ (not nature) is indirect (not unclear or clouded). Jorge is distorting Scripture pretty badly to use it the way that he does.

[Jorge]

Here's an interesting note on the "dark glass" passage from the NET Bible:

Source: NET Bible Notes

1Corinthians 13:12 tn Grk “we are seeing through [= using] a mirror by means of a dark image.” Corinth was well known in the ancient world for producing some of the finest bronze mirrors available. Paul’s point in this analogy, then, is not that our current understanding and relationship with God is distorted (as if the mirror reflected poorly), but rather that it is “indirect,” (i.e., the nature of looking in a mirror) compared to the relationship we will enjoy with him in the future when we see him “face to face” (cf. G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 648)

© Copyright Original Source

So the implication of the Greek is that our view of Christ (not nature) is indirect (not unclear or clouded). Jorge is distorting Scripture pretty badly to use it the way that he does.

Already responded to that (do try keeping up or, if not, stay out of it!).
Condensed: I consider ALL of Scripture, not isolated passages. 'Isolated passages' is the strategy that dishonest individuals employ so as to pursue their own agendas. To wit: "an eye for an eye", taken in isolation, may and has been used to justify revenge.

Applied to the matter at hand, yes indeed, we do not view Christ as He is. But neither do we see God's Creation as it actually is. What you're doing is creating a false dichotomy: it doesn't have to be 'one or the other' - it is both.

Oh, but wait: here I'm speaking with OECs/TEs and that happens to be one of their most prized strategies! Never mind.

I also noted that you use a corrupted translation. Yeah, anyone can play that game. If you used The Source New Testament translation you could very easily support the "Christian" LGBT agenda using "scripture". Get real, KB.

Jorge

[Kbertsche]

Already responded to that (do try keeping up or, if not, stay out of it!).

Yes, I realize that you had responded to Jim. I had something to add to the discussion. And my response was to Jim, not directly to you.

I also noted that you use a corrupted translation. Yeah, anyone can play that game. If you used The Source New Testament translation you could very easily support the "Christian" LGBT agenda using "scripture". Get real, KB.

Jorge

Why do you conclude (or, more likely, assume) that the NET Bible is a "corrupted translation"? Simply because it is not the KJV?!? Do you know anything at all about the NET Bible?

The NET Bible NT translation is heavily influenced by Dan Wallace, one of the world's leading Koine Greek scholars, and a conservative evangelical. I believe Dan Wallace was the main editor for the NT notes. The NET Bible notes are excellent; they are both scholarly and conservative.

If you prefer the original text, here it is:

Source: NA28

1Cor. 13:12 βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον· ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

© Copyright Original Source

[Duragizer]

Jorge prefers archaic translations. They go well with his archaic mentality.

[Jorge]

Why do you conclude (or, more likely, assume) that the NET Bible is a "corrupted translation"? Simply because it is not the KJV?!? Do you know anything at all about the NET Bible?

The NET Bible NT translation is heavily influenced by Dan Wallace, one of the world's leading Koine Greek scholars, and a conservative evangelical. I believe Dan Wallace was the main editor for the NT notes. The NET Bible notes are excellent; they are both scholarly and conservative.

I did not "assume" anything; my conclusions are based on a lengthy (> 8-year) study that I conducted on Bible versions/translations [a study that I plan to update some day - haven't touched it in years now]. In that study I collated over ten different "bible" versions. The conclusion was obvious (to me, at least).

But you are right on one thing: the NET Bible wasn't one that I had. But you see, my conclusion very strongly indicated to NOT trust any modern translation unless and until there was proof to the contrary.

Tell you what: I'll go take a quick look. My experience in this will know what to look for so it shouldn't take too long. I assume there is a copy of this on the internet. I'll report back later.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Why do you conclude (or, more likely, assume) that the NET Bible is a "corrupted translation"? Simply because it is not the KJV?!? Do you know anything at all about the NET Bible?

The NET Bible NT translation is heavily influenced by Dan Wallace, one of the world's leading Koine Greek scholars, and a conservative evangelical. I believe Dan Wallace was the main editor for the NT notes. The NET Bible notes are excellent; they are both scholarly and conservative.

Previously I had written:

But you are right on one thing: the NET Bible wasn't one that I had [used back then]. But you see, my conclusion very strongly indicated to NOT trust any modern translation unless and until there was proof to the contrary.

Tell you what: I'll go take a quick look. My experience in this will know what to look for so it shouldn't take too long. I assume there is a copy of this on the internet. I'll report back later.

Okay, that didn't take me long. Just as I had suspected (based on the conclusion from my studies 15+ years ago) I'll NOT trust or use the New English Translation (NET) except to further illustrate the heretical-blasphemous tendencies in modern "bible" versions-translations. Examples are numerous; I only had to review a dozen or so verses among those that I had collated years ago. There I found the same 'crimes' being perpetrated and in pretty much in the same way. Again, exactly as I had expected - I wasn't surprised in the least.

************************

By the way, I found this to be quite interesting (and so should you):

Their note # 22 on Genesis 1 reads as shown below.
As an OEC, you should take notice (but probably won't).
It echoes some of what I've been saying here ... forever. I really appreciated this bit of honesty.

"... It seems to follow the Jewish order of reckoning time: from evening to morning. Day one started with the dark, continued through the creation of light, and ended with nightfall. Another alternative would be to translate, “There was night and then there was day, one day.”

... The exegetical evidence suggests the word “day” in this chapter refers to a literal twenty-four hour day. It is true that the word can refer to a longer period of time (see Isa 61:2, or the idiom in 2:4, “in the day,” that is, “when”). But this chapter uses “day,” “night,” “morning,” “evening,” “years,” and “seasons.” Consistency would require sorting out how all these terms could be used to express ages. Also, when the Hebrew word יוֹם (yom) is used with a numerical adjective, it refers to a literal day. Furthermore, the commandment to keep the sabbath clearly favors this interpretation. One is to work for six days and then rest on the seventh, just as God did when he worked at creation."

Facts such as this easily explain why TEs/OECs have performed incredible intellectual somersaults in order to distort or eliminate altogether Genesis 1-11. Hey, whatever it takes, right?

Jorge

[rogue06]

Read my last post (to KB) and try again.
God is able to cover more than one base.

Jorge

You merely repeated what Jim was pointing out you misunderstood.

[rogue06]

Yes, I realize that you had responded to Jim. I had something to add to the discussion. And my response was to Jim, not directly to you.

Why do you conclude (or, more likely, assume) that the NET Bible is a "corrupted translation"? Simply because it is not the KJV?!? Do you know anything at all about the NET Bible?

The NET Bible NT translation is heavily influenced by Dan Wallace, one of the world's leading Koine Greek scholars, and a conservative evangelical. I believe Dan Wallace was the main editor for the NT notes. The NET Bible notes are excellent; they are both scholarly and conservative.

If you prefer the original text, here it is:

Source: NA28

1Cor. 13:12 βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον· ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

© Copyright Original Source

For Jorge the KJV trumps all other versions -- except when it doesn't support a YEC reading and then it gets kicked to the curb in short order. In Psalm 104, long known as the Creation Psalm in that it describes the Creation in poetic firm^[1], the waters are described thusly in verses 6-9:

Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

But in some translations it isn't the waters that are moving but the land itself that is. for instance in the New American Standard Bible: "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You established for them."

The second is more in line with the YEC view of the earth being reshaped during Noah's Flood, so Jorge tosses his beloved KJV aside here for what versions he regards as inferior say. This demonstrates that Jorge is more interested in supporting his YEC beliefs than he is in what the Bible says. He'll readily disregard what he argues is the superior reading if it calls into question what he thinks is the most important thing -- YEC.

But getting back to Psalm 104 being concerned with creation. All versions describe the waters covering the entire planet at verse 6 (parallel to Genesis 1:9) with God then causing the dry land to appear (verses 7-8, parallel to Genesis 1:9-10), but what follows eliminates Noah's Flood as being global in concept, "Thou didst set a bound which they [the waters] should not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth" (Psalm 104:9). Obviously, if the waters never again covered the entire earth, then Noah’s Flood could not have been worldwide and must be more localized.

Nearly all YECs concede that the psalm is indeed describing the creation (in a poetic, anachronistic manner), but claim that Noah’s Flood was an exception to the part about the waters never flooding all the earth. That would mean that the psalm is just plain wrong -- a strange claim indeed coming from those who vehemently claim that the Bible is inerrant and thus needs to be taken absolutely literally. For example in "A Commentary Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments," by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset and David Brown, Vol. 2, p.323 we read "The flood was a temporary exception, which, according to the sure word of God is never to be repeated."

I wonder what other "temporary exception[s]" they allow for.













1. The Septuagint ascribes it to David "concerning the formation of the world" although some scholars believe the account is actually older than the one relayed in Genesis 1.

[Kbertsche]

Previously I had written:

But you are right on one thing: the NET Bible wasn't one that I had [used back then]. But you see, my conclusion very strongly indicated to NOT trust any modern translation unless and until there was proof to the contrary.

Tell you what: I'll go take a quick look. My experience in this will know what to look for so it shouldn't take too long. I assume there is a copy of this on the internet. I'll report back later.

Okay, that didn't take me long. Just as I had suspected (based on the conclusion from my studies 15+ years ago) I'll NOT trust or use the New English Translation (NET) except to further illustrate the heretical-blasphemous tendencies in modern "bible" versions-translations. Examples are numerous; I only had to review a dozen or so verses among those that I had collated years ago. There I found the same 'crimes' being perpetrated and in pretty much in the same way. Again, exactly as I had expected - I wasn't surprised in the least.

************************

By the way, I found this to be quite interesting (and so should you):

Their note # 22 on Genesis 1 reads as shown below.
As an OEC, you should take notice (but probably won't).
It echoes some of what I've been saying here ... forever. I really appreciated this bit of honesty.

"... It seems to follow the Jewish order of reckoning time: from evening to morning. Day one started with the dark, continued through the creation of light, and ended with nightfall. Another alternative would be to translate, “There was night and then there was day, one day.”

... The exegetical evidence suggests the word “day” in this chapter refers to a literal twenty-four hour day. It is true that the word can refer to a longer period of time (see Isa 61:2, or the idiom in 2:4, “in the day,” that is, “when”). But this chapter uses “day,” “night,” “morning,” “evening,” “years,” and “seasons.” Consistency would require sorting out how all these terms could be used to express ages. Also, when the Hebrew word יוֹם (yom) is used with a numerical adjective, it refers to a literal day. Furthermore, the commandment to keep the sabbath clearly favors this interpretation. One is to work for six days and then rest on the seventh, just as God did when he worked at creation."

Facts such as this easily explain why TEs/OECs have performed incredible intellectual somersaults in order to distort or eliminate altogether Genesis 1-11. Hey, whatever it takes, right?

Jorge

Yes, the translation and notes for the OT of the NET Bible aren't as consistent in quality as the NT. The NT is quite good.

[Kbertsche]

For Jorge the KJV trumps all other versions -- except when it doesn't support a YEC reading and then it gets kicked to the curb in short order. In Psalm 104, long known as the Creation Psalm in that it describes the Creation in poetic firm^[1], the waters are described thusly in verses 6-9:

Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

But in some translations it isn't the waters that are moving but the land itself that is. for instance in the New American Standard Bible: "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You established for them."

The second is more in line with the YEC view of the earth being reshaped during Noah's Flood, so Jorge tosses his beloved KJV aside here for what versions he regards as inferior say. This demonstrates that Jorge is more interested in supporting his YEC beliefs than he is in what the Bible says. He'll readily disregard what he argues is the superior reading if it calls into question what he thinks is the most important thing -- YEC.

I looked into this issue a few years ago. The genders of the Hebrew words clearly support the first translation, but apparently gender agreement isn't always followed in Hebrew poetry. But the poetic imagery better supports the first translation as well. God is presented as a warrior-King; the waters are presented as an opposing army that is fleeing from Him. So they go up the mountains and down the valleys to get away.

But getting back to Psalm 104 being concerned with creation. All versions describe the waters covering the entire planet at verse 6 (parallel to Genesis 1:9) with God then causing the dry land to appear (verses 7-8, parallel to Genesis 1:9-10), but what follows eliminates Noah's Flood as being global in concept, "Thou didst set a bound which they [the waters] should not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth" (Psalm 104:9). Obviously, if the waters never again covered the entire earth, then Noah’s Flood could not have been worldwide and must be more localized.

Nearly all YECs concede that the psalm is indeed describing the creation (in a poetic, anachronistic manner), but claim that Noah’s Flood was an exception to the part about the waters never flooding all the earth. That would mean that the psalm is just plain wrong -- a strange claim indeed coming from those who vehemently claim that the Bible is inerrant and thus needs to be taken absolutely literally. For example in "A Commentary Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments," by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset and David Brown, Vol. 2, p.323 we read "The flood was a temporary exception, which, according to the sure word of God is never to be repeated."

I wonder what other "temporary exception[s]" they allow for.


1. The Septuagint ascribes it to David "concerning the formation of the world" although some scholars believe the account is actually older than the one relayed in Genesis 1.

I believe that many (if not most) YECs claim that this passage in Psalm 104 refers to the Flood, not to Creation. The first claim that I could find arguing this was an old BibSac article by Henry Morris.

But I agree with you that this Psalm is really talking about Creation.

[Jorge]

Yes, the translation and notes for the OT of the NET Bible aren't as consistent in quality as the NT. The NT is quite good.

Bwahahahahaha

The notes "aren't as consistent in quality" because ........... drum roll, please ...........
... because they clearly state what is obvious to any person with grade-school reading skills.
A person has to adopt 'Post-Modern, Liberal, Enlightened' thinking to not see the obvious.

Good one, KB!!! Thanks for clearly supporting the position that I've long maintained here.

I'll file this howler for future reference.

EDITED TO ADD:

I'm quite busy but I will try to find a chunk of time to see how the NET butchers the Bible from cover to cover. From my brief sampling I already know with certainty that "butchering" is the right word, I just want to explore it deeper. If I go far enough, I can add it to the list of "bibles" of my previous study. Who knows - this may be the incentive I need to update that study. Thanks for the tip, KB!

Jorge

[rogue06]

I believe that many (if not most) YECs claim that this passage in Psalm 104 refers to the Flood, not to Creation. The first claim that I could find arguing this was an old BibSac article by Henry Morris.

But I agree with you that this Psalm is really talking about Creation.

That's just the inconsistency that many engage in. While acknowledging that 104 is a creation psalm, for them that particular part is about different event that even by their own time line takes place something like 1500 to 2000 years later.

[Kbertsche]

Bwahahahahaha

The notes "aren't as consistent in quality" because ........... drum roll, please ...........
... because they clearly state what is obvious to any person with grade-school reading skills.
A person has to adopt 'Post-Modern, Liberal, Enlightened' thinking to not see the obvious.

Good one, KB!!! Thanks for clearly supporting the position that I've long maintained here.

I'll file this howler for future reference.

EDITED TO ADD:

I'm quite busy but I will try to find a chunk of time to see how the NET butchers the Bible from cover to cover. From my brief sampling I already know with certainty that "butchering" is the right word, I just want to explore it deeper. If I go far enough, I can add it to the list of "bibles" of my previous study. Who knows - this may be the incentive I need to update that study. Thanks for the tip, KB!

Jorge

My comments should have been pretty clear. In general, the NET Bible does a good job on the OT and a great job on the NT. The OT quality is somewhat inconsistent.

For example, let's look at Ps 104 since Rogue 06 brought it up. Some of the NET notes are excellent:

Source: NET Bible Notes

Psalm 104:3
tn Heb “one who lays the beams on water [in] his upper rooms.” The “water” mentioned here corresponds to the “waters above” mentioned in Gen 1:7. For a discussion of the picture envisioned by the psalmist, see L. I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, 44–45.
sn Verse 3 may depict the Lord riding a cherub, which is in turn propelled by the wind current. Another option is that the wind is personified as a cherub. See Ps 18:10 and the discussion of ancient Near Eastern parallels to the imagery in M. Weinfeld, “‘Rider of the Clouds’ and ‘Gatherer of the Clouds’,” JANESCU 5 (1973): 422-24

Psalm 104:4
tc Heb “and his attendants a flaming fire.” The lack of agreement between the singular “fire” and plural “attendants” has prompted various emendations. Some read “fire and flame.” The present translation assumes an emendation to “his attendant” (יו in the Hebrew text being virtually dittographic).
sn In Ugaritic mythology Yam’s messengers appear as flaming fire before the assembly of the gods. See G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 42.

Psalm 104:6
tc Heb “you covered it.” The masculine suffix is problematic if the grammatically feminine noun “earth” is the antecedent. For this reason some emend the form to a feminine verb with feminine suffix, כִּסַּתָּה (kisattah, “[the watery deep] covered it [i.e., the earth]”), a reading assumed by the present translation.
tn Heb “stood.”
sn Verse 6 refers to the condition described in Gen 1:2 (note the use of the Hebrew term תְּהוֹם [téhom, “watery deep”] in both texts).

Psalm 104:8
tn Heb “from your shout they fled, from the sound of your thunder they hurried off.”
sn Verses 7–8 poetically depict Gen 1:9–10.

Psalm 104:9
tn Heb “a boundary you set up, they will not cross, they will not return to cover the earth.”

© Copyright Original Source

The notes on verse 8 suggest that the waters went up and down the mountains and valleys (as the KJV and NIV read, and as I am convinced is the real meaning of the Hebrew text.). However, the NET text itself doesn't translate it this way:

Source: NET Bible

Psa. 104:7 Your shout made the waters retreat;
at the sound of your thunderous voice they hurried off–
Psa. 104:8 as the mountains rose up,
and the valleys went down–
to the place you appointed for them.

© Copyright Original Source

[One Bad Pig]

Previously I had written:

But you are right on one thing: the NET Bible wasn't one that I had [used back then]. But you see, my conclusion very strongly indicated to NOT trust any modern translation unless and until there was proof to the contrary.

Tell you what: I'll go take a quick look. My experience in this will know what to look for so it shouldn't take too long. I assume there is a copy of this on the internet. I'll report back later.

Okay, that didn't take me long. Just as I had suspected (based on the conclusion from my studies 15+ years ago) I'll NOT trust or use the New English Translation (NET) except to further illustrate the heretical-blasphemous tendencies in modern "bible" versions-translations. Examples are numerous; I only had to review a dozen or so verses among those that I had collated years ago. There I found the same 'crimes' being perpetrated and in pretty much in the same way. Again, exactly as I had expected - I wasn't surprised in the least.

Interesting. What are your criteria?

[Jorge]

My comments should have been pretty clear. In general, the NET Bible does a good job on the OT and a great job on the NT. The OT quality is somewhat inconsistent.

For example, let's look at Ps 104 since Rogue 06 brought it up. Some of the NET notes are excellent:

Source: NET Bible Notes

Psalm 104:3
tn Heb “one who lays the beams on water [in] his upper rooms.” The “water” mentioned here corresponds to the “waters above” mentioned in Gen 1:7. For a discussion of the picture envisioned by the psalmist, see L. I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, 44–45.
sn Verse 3 may depict the Lord riding a cherub, which is in turn propelled by the wind current. Another option is that the wind is personified as a cherub. See Ps 18:10 and the discussion of ancient Near Eastern parallels to the imagery in M. Weinfeld, “‘Rider of the Clouds’ and ‘Gatherer of the Clouds’,” JANESCU 5 (1973): 422-24

Psalm 104:4
tc Heb “and his attendants a flaming fire.” The lack of agreement between the singular “fire” and plural “attendants” has prompted various emendations. Some read “fire and flame.” The present translation assumes an emendation to “his attendant” (יו in the Hebrew text being virtually dittographic).
sn In Ugaritic mythology Yam’s messengers appear as flaming fire before the assembly of the gods. See G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 42.

Psalm 104:6
tc Heb “you covered it.” The masculine suffix is problematic if the grammatically feminine noun “earth” is the antecedent. For this reason some emend the form to a feminine verb with feminine suffix, כִּסַּתָּה (kisattah, “[the watery deep] covered it [i.e., the earth]”), a reading assumed by the present translation.
tn Heb “stood.”
sn Verse 6 refers to the condition described in Gen 1:2 (note the use of the Hebrew term תְּהוֹם [téhom, “watery deep”] in both texts).

Psalm 104:8
tn Heb “from your shout they fled, from the sound of your thunder they hurried off.”
sn Verses 7–8 poetically depict Gen 1:9–10.

Psalm 104:9
tn Heb “a boundary you set up, they will not cross, they will not return to cover the earth.”

© Copyright Original Source

The notes on verse 8 suggest that the waters went up and down the mountains and valleys (as the KJV and NIV read, and as I am convinced is the real meaning of the Hebrew text.). However, the NET text itself doesn't translate it this way:

Source: NET Bible

Psa. 104:7 Your shout made the waters retreat;
at the sound of your thunderous voice they hurried off–
Psa. 104:8 as the mountains rose up,
and the valleys went down–
to the place you appointed for them.

© Copyright Original Source

Yeah, right, whatever. You all well-rehearsed on being as slippery as a greased eel, KB.

The bottom line is as I have stated all along: nothing -- NOTHING!!! -- will ever get you people to admit the obvious. No evidence, no argument, no logic ... nothing! Christ in person would certainly do it but it's not His time to show up just yet.

As you know we are in the middle of an election campaign ans I've been watching some of Hillary Clinton's mega-criminal double-speak dating back to the 1990's. It's hard and scary to believe that a creature like that actually exists. Well, truth be told, TEs/OECs/Humanists/Atheists/Materialists (TEOHAMs) often remind me of that same kind of behavior.

Maybe (I say "maybe" because I don't know you well enough to determine either way) you're one of the 'better' ones - who knows? But speaking in general the TEOHAMs are, bluntly, not intellectually honest. They often sound like Bill Clinton did when he was undergoing Congressional inquiry. The infamous, "It depends what is IS" exemplifies their tactics.

This is too bad because if only they'd be honest with themselves and with others then a good resolution would be quick. But you know what? I think that these are all things that have to be as they are. It's all part of the 'End Times' signs that must occur so that His Word be fulfilled. I remind myself of that every now and then.

Jorge