Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The evidence of a Tigris Euphrates Noah flood about 2900 BCE

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    But God commanded them to take every kind of living creatures, not just endangered or specific ones. And he said he was ending all life under heaven. "17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it."
    It is a matter of filtering the options:
    Perhaps:
    1/ a story with factual basis, but with elements added for dramatic effect. That would be a matter of determining just how much was added.
    2/ a fable which has been severed from a cultural context which identifies it as such.
    3/ a factual record

    On the basis of all the available evidence, option 3 is not viable.

    The first option is viable, with the timing being pushed further back in history if additional material is minimal. It can be brought forward in time if a lot of additional material has been added.

    The second option needs no adjustments. Nor would that conflict with the New Testament record. Referring to fables as if they are factual is a perfectly ordinary behaviour. We do not, for example, ordinarily specify "the fictional" events and characters in the parables. They are simply referred to as if they were real - and even fictional characters in recent works. We do not say "the fictional character, Doctor Who said ~;" just "Doctor Who said ~."
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      It is a matter of filtering the options:
      Perhaps:
      1/ a story with factual basis, but with elements added for dramatic effect. That would be a matter of determining just how much was added.
      2/ a fable which has been severed from a cultural context which identifies it as such.
      3/ a factual record

      On the basis of all the available evidence, option 3 is not viable.

      The first option is viable, with the timing being pushed further back in history if additional material is minimal. It can be brought forward in time if a lot of additional material has been added.

      The second option needs no adjustments. Nor would that conflict with the New Testament record. Referring to fables as if they are factual is a perfectly ordinary behaviour. We do not, for example, ordinarily specify "the fictional" events and characters in the parables. They are simply referred to as if they were real - and even fictional characters in recent works. We do not say "the fictional character, Doctor Who said ~;" just "Doctor Who said ~."
      1 and 2 make the bible into a liar.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        But God commanded them to take every kind of living creatures, not just endangered or specific ones. And he said he was ending all life under heaven. "17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it."
        Reposting this
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        This kinda leads into a discussion concerning the use of "all" in the Bible and just how literally it should be taken in some instances.

        During the account of the Flood itself we read that all flesh had become corrupted; yet the text also says that Noah was a "righteous man, blameless in his time." Thus, "all flesh" doesn’t mean all flesh since there was at least one exception. All does not mean all.

        Likewise, Gen 3:20 pronounces Eve as "the mother of all living." Literally, that means that all life originated from a human woman, Eve, which nobody contends this is the case.

        Are there other instances when "all" does not literally mean "all"? Definitely.

        "Moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth" (Genesis 41:57). Did starving Australian Aborigines come to Joseph seeking food? How about Inuits? Similarly, the famine predicted by Agabus that "took place in the days of Claudius" was said to have occurred "over all the world" (Acts 11:28).

        "And the fame of David went out into all lands, and the Lord brought the fear of him upon all nations" (I Chronicles 14:17). Apparently American Indians were quaking in fear at David’s reputation. But then they were apparently consoled when Solomon’s reign began because now "the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom" (I Kings 19:11).

        "And horses were imported for Solomon from Egypt and from all lands"(II Chronicles 9:28).

        "All the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom." (II Chronicles 9:23) – does this include rulers in America as well?

        "In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled" (Lk 2:1). In this case "all the world" means only the Roman Empire.

        Likewise, when Cyrus declares in II Chronicles 36:23 that God "has given me all the kingdoms of the earth" he meant only the lands controlled by the Persian Empire.

        "For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened" (Exodus 10:15 – KJV), though verses 12, 14 make it clear that it meant only the land of Egypt and why some other versions choose to use "whole land" instead of "whole earth."

        Mark 1:5 tells us that "all the land of Judea" were baptized by John in the wilderness. Of course, we understand from the context that this does not literally mean every single human in the land of Judea.

        Mark 4:34 says Jesus taught His disciples about "all things," but does anyone serious believe this included details of such things like space travel, advanced calculus and the sex life of sea slugs?

        And Paul explicitly stated that the entire world was hearing the gospel (Romans 1:8; Colossians 1:6; cf. I Timothy 3:16). Later Christian theologians used these passages as "proof" that no one could possibly be living on the other side of the world. The Bible said it, they believed it, and that settled it. Nevertheless, millions of Native Americans lived in the Americas despite the theologian’s ideological objections.

        These are only a few examples illustrating the fact that all does not always literally mean all.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          It says, "every living creature"

          And what about "under heaven?"

          IT seems like the context of the whole passage is saying everything that exists. Trying to shoehorn it into it meaning a local flood seems like a stretch. It might have been a local flood but the writer's seem to be claiming it is global.
          Every living creature where? Every living creature in the whole earth? That's the question we're attempting to figure out. And "every" is just the Hebrew word "all" (כֹּל / kōl) that Dr. Hesier was referring to. And again, like "all" "Under the heaven" is a common figure of speech in the ancient Mediterranean. A form of hyperbole. See for instance John Walton and Tremper Longman's recent book in the Lost World series, The Lost World of the Flood,

          Source: The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate by John H. Walton, Tremper Longman III

          The Mesopotamian accounts are rather vague on the extent of the flood. In terms of land coverage, the only information is found in Gilgamesh once the flood has ended. When Uta-napishti opens the window he sees shores/the edge of the sea and fourteen places where landmasses were visible (11.140-41)--so not all was totally submerged. Regarding people, Atrahasis indicates that "total destruction" was called for by the gods, and in Gilgamesh, observing the aftermath of the flood, "all the people had turned to clay" (11.135).

          The account in Genesis offers much more information on this count. The geographical extent of the flood is described in a variety of ways:

          • "all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered" (Gen 7:19)
          • "covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits" (Gen 7:20)
          • "there was water over all the surface of the earth" (Gen 8:9)



          Several factors, however, make these statements less specific than we might imagine. In keeping with the use of hyperbole, the rhetoric of universalism can be attested in numerous places in the Bible (for a few examples see Gen 41:57; Ex 9:6 [cf. Ex 9:19]; Deut 2:25). Examples in ancient literature that use universalistic language rhetorically are not difficult to find. A text known as Sargon's Geography states, "Sargon, King of the Universe, conquered the totality of the land under heaven."

          When we turn attention to the impact of the flood on humanity, we again find that the biblical text is more explicit than the Mesopotamian version.
          • "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created." (Gen 6:7)
          • "I am going to put an end to all people. . . . I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth." (Gen 6:13)
          • "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." (Gen 6:17)
          • "I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." (Gen 7:4)
          • "Every living thing that moved on land perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. " (Gen 7:21-23)
          • "Never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." (Gen 8:21)



          Most of these depend on the use of the Hebrew word translated "all," and the response would be the same as was given regarding the amount of land covered--that is, these are examples of universalistic rhetoric. The exception were "all" is not used is in Genesis 7:23, where it is turned around to say that "only Noah was left." This is a problematic translation. The Hebrew particle translated "only" is 'ak. This is not the word that would be expected if the text wanted to single out Noah (and those with him) as alone surviving. The normal construction for that can be observed in Job 1:15-18 (4x) where the word only is Hebrew raq. Hebrew 'ak usually begins a clause, so comparable examples of the syntactical construction in Genesis 7:23 (following a wayyiqtol verbal form) are difficult to identify. It regularly functions either as asseverative (e.g., "surely") or adversative (e.g., "yet"). In either of those cases, however, the particle should have led the clause.

          In conclusion, both Hebrew and Akkadian texts are vague about the human survivors, which is no surprise since people would have only limited knowledge of populated areas across the known world. The widespread nature of the destruction is indicated by the use of universalistic rhetoric well-known for cataclysmic events, especially of a cosmic nature, in the ancient world.

          © Copyright Original Source

          Comment


          • #65
            To be clear, if the flood was universal, and the Bible intended to speak of it as universal, I'm cool with that. The science on it is really strange if so, but the science of the day has been known to be wrong before, and it's possible it's wrong again this time. I just sincerely don't think the Bible intended the flood to be understood universally. I really do think it was using figures of speech, and hyperbole as was common in the era, in much the same sense that when we hear of the Israelites utterly destroying a nation down to every last man, woman, and child, and then we read a few chapters later and find that people from that nation still exist...or how we hear about the pre-flood Nephilim existing after the flood in Numbers 13.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              I could think of a number of species that would be wiped out by a local flood. Heck, there are species of animals that have been hunted out the region and that have never come back. For instance, the auroch, the Asiatic lion, the addax, the wild ass, and the red deer. And birds too, like the lappet-faced vulture are facing extinction in the area. In fact, there's an organization whose goal it is to save endangered birds found in the Bible. They're called The Biblical Ornithological Society.
              It could be that God wants Noah to reestablish the local ecosystem as much as possible after the Flood which would include "all" of the various life forms that resided there and not just endangered ones.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                To be clear, if the flood was universal, and the Bible intended to speak of it as universal, I'm cool with that. The science on it is really strange if so, but the science of the day has been known to be wrong before, and it's possible it's wrong again this time. I just sincerely don't think the Bible intended the flood to be understood universally. I really do think it was using figures of speech, and hyperbole as was common in the era, in much the same sense that when we hear of the Israelites utterly destroying a nation down to every last man, woman, and child, and then we read a few chapters later and find that people from that nation still exist...or how we hear about the pre-flood Nephilim existing after the flood in Numbers 13.
                The bolded bit often gets ignored by those insisting that all life under heaven had been exterminated. Given that Noah didn't appear to take any fish or other aquatic animals aboard the Ark I think it is reasonable to say that not all life under heaven had been exterminated (never mind the fact that sea creatures manage just fine during floods).

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  Every living creature where? Every living creature in the whole earth? That's the question we're attempting to figure out. And "every" is just the Hebrew word "all" (כֹּל / kōl) that Dr. Hesier was referring to. And again, like "all" "Under the heaven" is a common figure of speech in the ancient Mediterranean. A form of hyperbole. See for instance John Walton and Tremper Longman's recent book in the Lost World series, The Lost World of the Flood,

                  Source: The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate by John H. Walton, Tremper Longman III

                  The Mesopotamian accounts are rather vague on the extent of the flood. In terms of land coverage, the only information is found in Gilgamesh once the flood has ended. When Uta-napishti opens the window he sees shores/the edge of the sea and fourteen places where landmasses were visible (11.140-41)--so not all was totally submerged. Regarding people, Atrahasis indicates that "total destruction" was called for by the gods, and in Gilgamesh, observing the aftermath of the flood, "all the people had turned to clay" (11.135).

                  The account in Genesis offers much more information on this count. The geographical extent of the flood is described in a variety of ways:

                  • "all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered" (Gen 7:19)
                  • "covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits" (Gen 7:20)
                  • "there was water over all the surface of the earth" (Gen 8:9)



                  Several factors, however, make these statements less specific than we might imagine. In keeping with the use of hyperbole, the rhetoric of universalism can be attested in numerous places in the Bible (for a few examples see Gen 41:57; Ex 9:6 [cf. Ex 9:19]; Deut 2:25). Examples in ancient literature that use universalistic language rhetorically are not difficult to find. A text known as Sargon's Geography states, "Sargon, King of the Universe, conquered the totality of the land under heaven."

                  When we turn attention to the impact of the flood on humanity, we again find that the biblical text is more explicit than the Mesopotamian version.
                  • "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created." (Gen 6:7)
                  • "I am going to put an end to all people. . . . I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth." (Gen 6:13)
                  • "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." (Gen 6:17)
                  • "I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." (Gen 7:4)
                  • "Every living thing that moved on land perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. " (Gen 7:21-23)
                  • "Never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." (Gen 8:21)



                  Most of these depend on the use of the Hebrew word translated "all," and the response would be the same as was given regarding the amount of land covered--that is, these are examples of universalistic rhetoric. The exception were "all" is not used is in Genesis 7:23, where it is turned around to say that "only Noah was left." This is a problematic translation. The Hebrew particle translated "only" is 'ak. This is not the word that would be expected if the text wanted to single out Noah (and those with him) as alone surviving. The normal construction for that can be observed in Job 1:15-18 (4x) where the word only is Hebrew raq. Hebrew 'ak usually begins a clause, so comparable examples of the syntactical construction in Genesis 7:23 (following a wayyiqtol verbal form) are difficult to identify. It regularly functions either as asseverative (e.g., "surely") or adversative (e.g., "yet"). In either of those cases, however, the particle should have led the clause.

                  In conclusion, both Hebrew and Akkadian texts are vague about the human survivors, which is no surprise since people would have only limited knowledge of populated areas across the known world. The widespread nature of the destruction is indicated by the use of universalistic rhetoric well-known for cataclysmic events, especially of a cosmic nature, in the ancient world.

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  where? It says " I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish

                  He seems to be making the point that everything is going to die. He makes the point over and over in different ways. The context is pretty clear. It seems like you have to do a lot of ignoring of context and chopping things into pieces in order to make it say it is local.

                  You guys are taking natural evidence that there was not a global flood, then working backwards to make that fit into the narrative, no matter how hard you have to shoehorn it in. That is eisegesis. The plain reading of the text shows it means globally. Now you can argue that the text is wrong, but I don't think you can argue that the writer (Moses?) MEANT it was a local flood because he goes to some length to make it read as a worldwide flood.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    The bolded bit often gets ignored by those insisting that all life under heaven had been exterminated. Given that Noah didn't appear to take any fish or other aquatic animals aboard the Ark I think it is reasonable to say that not all life under heaven had been exterminated (never mind the fact that sea creatures manage just fine during floods).
                    The fish are excluded above in verse 7, where God says all of the creatures that move along the ground and the birds.

                    7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      It could be that God wants Noah to reestablish the local ecosystem as much as possible after the Flood which would include "all" of the various life forms that resided there and not just endangered ones.
                      Exactly. It seems my point about endangered species is a bit misunderstood though (since you're sort of making a similar point as Sparko). Lions aren't a necessarily an endangered species (they're currently on the "vulnerable" list according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature), but certain regional variations of the lion are endangered. Some are completely extinct. The Asiatic lion is endangered, and is nearly non-existent in the Mediterranean, and gone from Israel completely. I meant something similar to what you're saying...that the animals were preserved so that the local ecosystem was restored...that native variations did not go extinct.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        where? It says " I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish

                        He seems to be making the point that everything is going to die. He makes the point over and over in different ways. The context is pretty clear. It seems like you have to do a lot of ignoring of context and chopping things into pieces in order to make it say it is local.

                        You guys are taking natural evidence that there was not a global flood, then working backwards to make that fit into the narrative, no matter how hard you have to shoehorn it in. That is eisegesis. The plain reading of the text shows it means globally. Now you can argue that the text is wrong, but I don't think you can argue that the writer (Moses?) MEANT it was a local flood because he goes to some length to make it read as a worldwide flood.
                        In both Heiser's work, and in Walton and Longman's they offer examples of "all life," and even "under the heavens," and how these phrases are used rhetorically. These are Old Testament scholars. They're reading these passages in the Hebrew. They recognize them for what they are...exaggerations. Common exaggerations. You don't have to chop things into pieces to see that, it's perfectly clear to those who know the Hebrew, and the context of this sort of rhetoric in the ancient world. This isn't eisegesis, it's exegesis. Wouldn't an Old Testament Bible scholar be able to tell the difference? I don't think the text is wrong. I think the text is right, and that it's often been read wrong.

                        And I've stated (as did Heiser) that I am NOT taking natural evidence about the unlikelihood that there was a global flood and working backwards.

                        Do you really think that people in South America, or Korea, or Australia were afraid of Israel when the Bible says,

                        Scripture Verse: Deuteronomy 2:24

                        “Set out now and cross the Arnon Gorge. See, I have given into your hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his country. Begin to take possession of it and engage him in battle. 25 This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven. They will hear reports of you and will tremble and be in anguish because of you.”

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        Did that ever happen universally? No. People beyond the Mediterranean never even heard of the people of Israel. What the Bible says did happen though. It happened among all the nations of the region under the heaven, not all nations everywhere universally.
                        Last edited by Adrift; 06-06-2019, 01:27 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          The fish are excluded above in verse 7, where God says all of the creatures that move along the ground and the birds.

                          7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
                          I'm not sure that excludes fish since fish are animals and AFAICT were regarded as such by the ancient Israelites. There are three groups mentioned along with humanity, animals, birds and "creatures that move along the ground" which IIRC is generally interpreted to mean bugs, worms and the like. But if all life was extinguished (except for what was inside Noah's Ark) that would include fish and other sea creatures.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            The bolded bit often gets ignored by those insisting that all life under heaven had been exterminated. Given that Noah didn't appear to take any fish or other aquatic animals aboard the Ark I think it is reasonable to say that not all life under heaven had been exterminated (never mind the fact that sea creatures manage just fine during floods).
                            Genesis 7: 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
                            20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

                            22 All in whose nostrils was the breath [d]of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.

                            2 Peter 3:6-7 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

                            I do not believe it stated that the life in the oceans and seas were whipped out.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              But we (as in Christians) know the Bible is true, which leads one to conclude that it's not the Bible but man's understanding of the evidence that is in error.
                              Martin Luther reasoned along those lines:

                              There is talk of a new astrologer [Nicolaus Copernicus] who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/103...copernicus-who
                              Last edited by Charles; 08-15-2019, 10:58 AM.
                              "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Chuckles View Post
                                Martin Luther reasoned along those lines:
                                That is, of course, in no way analogous to this specific topic or the arguments I have presented throughout this thread.

                                But nice troll attempt.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                29 responses
                                97 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                79 responses
                                416 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X