U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-21-2013, 07:12 PM
 
5,733 posts, read 4,647,352 times
Reputation: 1860

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
While some of the Targums were written by the middle of the 1st century, I don't know if the Psalms were. But whether Paul quoted the written Targum or referred to the oral form is irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is that Paul's quotation reflects the Targum. Here is what the Targum says;
Ketubim Targum Psalm 68
19. You ascended to the firmament, O prophet Moses; you captured captives, you taught the words of Torah, you gave gifts to the sons of men, and even the stubborn who are converted turn in repentance, [and] the glorious presence of the Lord God abides upon them.
Paul wrote,
Ephesians 4:8 Therefore it says, ''When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men.''
In post #16 I posted this comment of Dr. Allen P. Ross, Professor of Old Testament studies, from the Bible Knowledge Commentary.
Psalm 68:18 was referred to by Paul in Ephesians 4:8 (cf. comments there). However, rather than quoting the Hebrew, Paul apparently followed the Jewish interpretation of the day (the Targum), which paraphrased this verse as follows: ''You did ascend to the firmament, O Prophet Moses! You led captivity captive; you taught the words of the Law; you gave [not received,' as in the Heb.] gifts to the sons of men.'' (This interpretation saw Moses as God's representative.) Paul followed this Jewish exegesis because it explained that the conqueror distributed the gifts to His loyal subjects. The apostle applied that idea to Christ's victory over the forces of evil and His granting spiritual gifts (cf. Eph. 4:11) to those on His side. By this analogy (based more on the Jewish interpretation of the psalm than on the exact Heb. wording) Paul emphasized the greatness of believers' spiritual victory in Christ. [The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, p. 843]
Dr. Ross, said that Paul apparently followed the Targum. Now unless you or anyone else knows of some other source that Paul might have quoted, then the Targum is the logical conclusion as the source from which Paul quoted, and again, for the reason already given.

Now, do you or anyone else know of some other source from which Paul might have quoted when he wrote, ''and He gave gifts to men.''?
Sure, from the NET Bible Footnote:

'A quotation which is perhaps ultimately derived from Ps 68:18. However, the wording here differs from that of Ps 68 in both the Hebrew text and the LXX in a few places, the most significant of which is reading “gave gifts to” in place of “received gifts from” as in HT and LXX. It has sometimes been suggested that the author of Ephesians modified the text he was citing in order to better support what he wanted to say here. Such modifications are sometimes found in rabbinic exegesis from this and later periods, but it is also possible that the author was simply citing a variant of Ps 68 known to him but which has not survived outside its quotation here (W. H. Harris, The Descent of Christ [AGJU 32], 104). Another possibility is that the words here, which strongly resemble Ps 68:19 HT and LXX (68:18 ET), are actually part of an early Christian hymn quoted by the author.'

It seems clear that Paul, if quoting a targum, is quoting a Rabbinic interpretation (notice I said 'a' since as noted there were multiple interpretations).

My point, and this goes back to my previous post, is what value is it when people start to add multiple interpretations from which one is then chosen and then recorded in the NT which is taken as Inspired. As such that interpretation is then sanctioned, by God, as the right one according to this assumption of Inspiration. This just begs the question and only adds more probelms in figuring out what was original in the first place particularly when there was no written source to check but yet happens to be one of many interpretations found in a later written targum - if it ever was from a targum written or otherwise.

Your point seemingly was that Paul's use of a targum supports your intial claim the there were varied ways in which to interpret the Inspired text. I would think as such, Paul as an inspired agent, sanctions the practice and the interpretation. So how can the 'targum' not be inspired? It is not only a long way around to justify the interpretation but it begs the question and creates an epistemological problem.

The fact that you chose this rout is precisely because Paul's verse, where he says 'Therefore, it says...' does not line-up with the Hebrew nor the LXX text. We don't know what 'it' refers too - 'it' cannot be a written targum now can it. If 'it' refers to the LXX or HT then Paul just twisted it to comport to what he was trying to say. If 'it' refers to the Oral targum then he is just choosing one that suites his purposes. Either way playing loosy gooosy with intepretations does not help when one trys to argue for an All-powerful, all-knowing God that was trying to leave words of faith and practice and truth to his chosen people. I mean if they have to invent multiple ways of interpretation to makes sense of the inspired words then how inspired are they really and if we today have to fiddle around with all these possibilities and methods of intepretation then it just renders the whole thing practicly useless for coming to the conclusion that these are some sort of God-breathed words.

My ultimate point is, even granting an oral targum, does not help us as unbelievers to come to some sort of confidence in the inspiration of the Bible just because the faithful come-up with imaginitve ways in which to interpret what they considered inspired words of God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-21-2013, 07:18 PM
 
2,532 posts, read 2,021,103 times
Reputation: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
It is just these types of looooosey goosey rabbinic 'interpretations' and 'types of interpretations' that render any coherent and settled meaning on what is actually being conveyed by these ambiguous verses and what is their proper application - useless. The very fact that you have numerous post-hoc justifications (read ways in which to 'see' a verse and how to apply it) just goes to show you that from the begining they struggled to find meaning in these things - so much so that you now have different levels of meaning and different way in which to inteprete them. It frankly just goes to show how desperate religous folks are and how thye will do anything to ameliorate their cognitive dissonance and try to find meaning anyway possible. As such it renders the whole process for moderns moot except for mere historical purposes.
PS 68:18 "You have ascended on high, You have led captivity captive: You have received gifts for [NKJV] men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them." Jesus received gifts from the Father to give to men. Paul was only explaining that the gifts were not for Christ from men but rather for Him to give to men. This is implied in in Ps 68:18 and therefor appropriate for Paul to state it in the way which only makes since.

I know many versions say from men but that just not make since and does not harmonize between Psalms and Ephesians. I'll stick with NKJV and KJV any day because the Spirit bears witness. Paul quoted from and enhanced the meaning of OT Scriptures not the Targum.

Last edited by garya123; 10-21-2013 at 07:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2013, 07:39 PM
 
5,733 posts, read 4,647,352 times
Reputation: 1860
Quote:
Originally Posted by garya123 View Post
PS 68:18 "You have ascended on high, You have led captivity captive: You have received gifts for [NKJV] men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them." Jesus received gifts from the Father to give to men. Paul was only explaining that the gifts were not for Christ from men but rather for Him to give to men. This is implied in in Ps 68:18 and therefor appropriate for Paul to state it the way and which only makes since.

I know many versions say from men but that just not make since and does not harmonize between Psalms and Ephesians. I'll stick with NKJV and KJV any day because the Spirit bears witness.
Yes, I have no problem with this verse per-se. See the post previously to yours. It is that Paul says "Therefore, it says..." - what says what - if he is referring to the HT or LXX then he misquoted them. If it is just an oral Rabbinic tradition then how can it be inspired unless the traditon was inspired as well. Furthermore, the title of this thread 'How the New Testament Quotes the Old Testament' is misleading. Finally, if we are to allow such multiple interpretations, inspired or not, and multiple methods of interpretation how is this helpful in figuring out what was actually inspired or what is the proper interpretation? This only seems to allow those who have a bias toward justifying their assumption by creating multiple avenues by which to avoid any criticism. Yet in so doing they just muddy the waters so to speak.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2013, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,343 posts, read 5,517,669 times
Reputation: 4056
Default Multiple misquotes of the OT by Paul

Romans 3:10 (NIV) Paul: "There is no one righteous, not even one."

Psalm 14:1-3 David: "The fool says in his heart 'there is no God.' They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good."

Please note that Paul's statement is about character, David's statement is about deeds. This is not actually a quote from the Hebrew scriptures. Nowhere in the Tanakh, for instance, does it say there is no one who is righteous.

The importance of this is because Paul was either attempting to mislead Jews reading his letter OR he truly was ignorant, which I doubt. He is misusing the Hebrew Scriptures for his new purpose to maintain that righteousness must be perfect and comes only from Christ. The Hebrew scriptures teach differently.

In the historical Judaic faith, one does not have to be without sin, one only has to have a correct attitude toward God. In fact, in this misquote Paul does not quote verse 5 of the same Psalm which says, "There they are, overwhelmed with dread, for God is present in the company of the righteous. (v6) You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, but the Lord is their refuge."

The Davidic Psalm is talking to the same group of people in the same time frame and he states that God IS present in the company of the righteous (of which Paul claims there are none), and it appears they are mostly poor.

It is an absolute twisting on the words AND the meaning of the OT. Go to the link for an extended discussion.

https://docs.google.com/a/bossig.com...lhgadXUZNNW-JQ
----------------

Paul viewed the OT Christocentrically, much as many posters on these threads do. So he twisted meanings to fit how HE SAW things.
Quote:
The Old Testament text does not have a “deeper meaning” — one that we eventually “see” if only we sought hard or prayerfully enough. When John says that Isaiah in his vision (Isaiah 6) saw Jesus’ glory and spoke of Him (John 12:41), this is not something we would pick up just by reading Isaiah. Or when Romans 10:13 (citing Joel 2:32) refers to the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior (“Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved”), that kind of specificity was not on Joel’s mind. Paul sees Jesus as sharing in the identity of Yahweh (“the Lord”), but this is not clear in the Old Testament.
Do New Testament Writers Misquote the Old Testament?

Francis Peiper, author of Christian Dogmatics, 4 volumes, (St. Louis, Concordia, 1950) volume 1, pg 247 states: "According to our count, there are in the epistle to the Romans forty-seven quotations from the Old Testament, only twenty-four of which can be classified as literal."

That's a lot of mistakes for an educated Hebrew to make. He made a part of the Bible OT suddenly "not inspired," by changing it and making the new quote "the real inspired" version. Either way part of the Bible is no longer inspired if one holds to inerrancy.

I do hold to inspiration, but not to inerrancy, particularly with no critical reading and understanding. Paul literally "changed" verses to suit his purposes. After all, was not he the one who said, "I am become all things to all men so that by all means some can be saved."

Obviously hanging on to a bit of scripture that did not fit his purposes was not something that would hold him back. But that very action shows why the "every word is inspired" crowd is sadly mistaken. Or they have to cut out some of the OT or change it as Paul did.

Not for a moment do I think Paul was haphazard in his supposed "quotation" of OT scripture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2013, 08:21 PM
 
2,532 posts, read 2,021,103 times
Reputation: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
Yes, I have no problem with this verse per-se. See the post previously to yours. It is that Paul says "Therefore, it says..." - what says what - if he is referring to the HT or LXX then he misquoted them. If it is just an oral Rabbinic tradition then how can it be inspired unless the traditon was inspired as well. Furthermore, the title of this thread 'How the New Testament Quotes the Old Testament' is misleading. Finally, if we are to allow such multiple interpretations, inspired or not, and multiple methods of interpretation how is this helpful in figuring out what was actually inspired or what is the proper interpretation? This only seems to allow those who have a bias toward justifying their assumption by creating multiple avenues by which to avoid any criticism. Yet in so doing they just muddy the waters so to speak.
I don't see it as a misquote but rather an explanation/enhancement of the quote. Everyone says things in other words and they are right so long as they do not add to or take from the meaning of the exact quote. The NT has many examples of this.

I think even Jesus said some things of the OT using different words but same meaning. I think it shows a bit of freedom to say things that are inspired and approved of God without having to quote the same words but do harken back to the original. What clears the waters is if the Spirit agrees. If one can not "hear" the Spirit, it is all for not anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2013, 09:34 PM
 
2,532 posts, read 2,021,103 times
Reputation: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
Romans 3:10 (NIV) Paul: "There is no one righteous, not even one."

Psalm 14:1-3 David: "The fool says in his heart 'there is no God.' They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good."

Please note that Paul's statement is about character, David's statement is about deeds. This is not actually a quote from the Hebrew scriptures. Nowhere in the Tanakh, for instance, does it say there is no one who is righteous.

The importance of this is because Paul was either attempting to mislead Jews reading his letter OR he truly was ignorant, which I doubt. He is misusing the Hebrew Scriptures for his new purpose to maintain that righteousness must be perfect and comes only from Christ. The Hebrew scriptures teach differently.

In the historical Judaic faith, one does not have to be without sin, one only has to have a correct attitude toward God. In fact, in this misquote Paul does not quote verse 5 of the same Psalm which says, "There they are, overwhelmed with dread, for God is present in the company of the righteous. (v6) You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, but the Lord is their refuge."

The Davidic Psalm is talking to the same group of people in the same time frame and he states that God IS present in the company of the righteous (of which Paul claims there are none), and it appears they are mostly poor.

It is an absolute twisting on the words AND the meaning of the OT. Go to the link for an extended discussion.

https://docs.google.com/a/bossig.com...lhgadXUZNNW-JQ
----------------

Paul viewed the OT Christocentrically, much as many posters on these threads do. So he twisted meanings to fit how HE SAW things.
Do New Testament Writers Misquote the Old Testament?

Francis Peiper, author of Christian Dogmatics, 4 volumes, (St. Louis, Concordia, 1950) volume 1, pg 247 states: "According to our count, there are in the epistle to the Romans forty-seven quotations from the Old Testament, only twenty-four of which can be classified as literal."

That's a lot of mistakes for an educated Hebrew to make. He made a part of the Bible OT suddenly "not inspired," by changing it and making the new quote "the real inspired" version. Either way part of the Bible is no longer inspired if one holds to inerrancy.

I do hold to inspiration, but not to inerrancy, particularly with no critical reading and understanding. Paul literally "changed" verses to suit his purposes. After all, was not he the one who said, "I am become all things to all men so that by all means some can be saved."

Obviously hanging on to a bit of scripture that did not fit his purposes was not something that would hold him back. But that very action shows why the "every word is inspired" crowd is sadly mistaken. Or they have to cut out some of the OT or change it as Paul did.

Not for a moment do I think Paul was haphazard in his supposed "quotation" of OT scripture.
IS 53:6 "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

Perhaps Paul was not giving an exact quote as is apparent but rather what was written in other words but meaning the same thing as Paul was saying. All have self righteousness [his own way] but which means to go astray from His righteousness. Gods righteousness can only be found in Christ and that is what Paul was preaching, not miss appropriating Scripture to make the point. He said what Scripture was saying in other ways and he was correct in doing it.

As Jesus said, " Every Scribe instructed about the Kingdom brings forth out of his treasures both old and new things." The old ways to say truth and the new ways to say the same thing and other things also not even written such as the "hidden manner" referred to in Revelation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2013, 09:40 PM
 
21,997 posts, read 16,760,306 times
Reputation: 8768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
Sure, from the NET Bible Footnote:

'A quotation which is perhaps ultimately derived from Ps 68:18. However, the wording here differs from that of Ps 68 in both the Hebrew text and the LXX in a few places, the most significant of which is reading “gave gifts to” in place of “received gifts from” as in HT and LXX. It has sometimes been suggested that the author of Ephesians modified the text he was citing in order to better support what he wanted to say here. Such modifications are sometimes found in rabbinic exegesis from this and later periods, but it is also possible that the author was simply citing a variant of Ps 68 known to him but which has not survived outside its quotation here (W. H. Harris, The Descent of Christ [AGJU 32], 104). Another possibility is that the words here, which strongly resemble Ps 68:19 HT and LXX (68:18 ET), are actually part of an early Christian hymn quoted by the author.'

It seems clear that Paul, if quoting a targum, is quoting a Rabbinic interpretation (notice I said 'a' since as noted there were multiple interpretations).
Of course Paul's quotation ultimately derived from Psalms 68:18. And there have been different suggestions made regarding the 3rd phrase in that verse. The fact remains however that Paul's quote does reflect the Targum whether he used the written Targum or referred to the oral tradition.

Perhaps there was another variant of Psalms 68 available to Paul other than the Targum which is a paraphrase of Psalm 68. But if so, we don't have it. We do have the Targum however.

And of course Paul used the quote to lead into his subject.
Quote:
My point, and this goes back to my previous post, is what value is it when people start to add multiple interpretations from which one is then chosen and then recorded in the NT which is taken as Inspired. As such that interpretation is then sanctioned, by God, as the right one according to this assumption of Inspiration. This just begs the question and only adds more probelms in figuring out what was original in the first place particularly when there was no written source to check but yet happens to be one of many interpretations found in a later written targum - if it ever was from a targum written or otherwise.
The fact that the New Testament writers sometimes quoted from the Hebrew text, or from the LXX, or even quoted from pagan sources (I gave two examples) in order to make a point should not be an issue with anyone.

This thread is not addressing the issue of Inspiration. It is simply addressing the fact that as Dr. Fruchtenbaum has demonstrated (and he is not alone in recognizing this), the New Testament writers did quote the Old Testament in different ways which are explained in the OP.



Quote:
Your point seemingly was that Paul's use of a targum supports your intial claim the there were varied ways in which to interpret the Inspired text. I would think as such, Paul as an inspired agent, sanctions the practice and the interpretation. So how can the 'targum' not be inspired? It is not only a long way around to justify the interpretation but it begs the question and creates an epistemological problem.

The fact that you chose this rout is precisely because Paul's verse, where he says 'Therefore, it says...' does not line-up with the Hebrew nor the LXX text. We don't know what 'it' refers too - 'it' cannot be a written targum now can it. If 'it' refers to the LXX or HT then Paul just twisted it to comport to what he was trying to say. If 'it' refers to the Oral targum then he is just choosing one that suites his purposes. Either way playing loosy gooosy with intepretations does not help when one trys to argue for an All-powerful, all-knowing God that was trying to leave words of faith and practice and truth to his chosen people. I mean if they have to invent multiple ways of interpretation to makes sense of the inspired words then how inspired are they really and if we today have to fiddle around with all these possibilities and methods of intepretation then it just renders the whole thing practicly useless for coming to the conclusion that these are some sort of God-breathed words.

My ultimate point is, even granting an oral targum, does not help us as unbelievers to come to some sort of confidence in the inspiration of the Bible just because the faithful come-up with imaginitve ways in which to interpret what they considered inspired words of God.
What I said in the OP is that the New Testament quotes the Old Testament in different ways, and which are detailed in Dr. Fruchtenbaum's study.

I am not the one who brought up Paul's quotation. Another poster did in a later post. He thought that what he considered Paul's misquote of Psalm 68:18 was more interesting than what was addressed in the OP.

My only interest in this thread is to present Dr. Fruchtenbaum's study which addresses these four ways in which the Old Testament is used in the New Testament.

1.) Literal Prophecy Plus Literal Fulfillment: Pshat; Matthew 2:5 6 which quotes Micah 5:2 is an example of this kind of quotation.

2.) Literal Plus Typical: Remez; Matthew 2:15 which quotes Hosea 11:1 provides an example of this kind of quote.

3.) Literal Plus Application: Drash; Matthew 2:17-18 which quotes Jeremiah 31:15 regarding Rachel weeping for her children is an example of this kind of quotation.
Excerpt:
That verse is quoted in the New Testament because of one point of similarity. It is not a literal fulfillment nor a full-scale typology, but simply an application because of some point of similarity. In this case, the one point of similarity was Jewish mothers weeping for sons they would never see again because Herod had slaughtered all the males of Bethlehem from the age of two years old and under. Therefore, because of one point of similarity, the New Testament quotes the Old Testament as an application only.
4.) Summation: Sod; in which not a single prophet is quoted, but rather, the NT author is summarizing what the prophets said. Matthew 2:23 provides an example of this kind of quotation.


The details are given in the two sites provided in the OP. Skeptics like to claim that the New Testament writers misquoted the Old Testament. But the fact is that they very legitimately quoted using one of the ways mentioned above in order to make or support a point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2013, 10:25 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,343 posts, read 5,517,669 times
Reputation: 4056
Quote:
Originally Posted by garya123 View Post
IS 53:6 "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

Perhaps Paul was not giving an exact quote as is apparent but rather what was written in other words but meaning the same thing as Paul was saying. All have self righteousness [his own way] but which means to go astray from His righteousness. Gods righteousness can only be found in Christ and that is what Paul was preaching, not miss appropriating Scripture to make the point. He said what Scripture was saying in other ways and he was correct in doing it.

As Jesus said, " Every Scribe instructed about the Kingdom brings forth out of his treasures both old and new things." The old ways to say truth and the new ways to say the same thing and other things also not even written such as the "hidden manner" referred to in Revelation.
I absolutely agree that he was not giving an exact quote. And he did that on more than one occasion.

And if the original poster wants to limit all discussion to just one man's opinion in a book he wrote then that's fine. Because that author is, in a number of cases, full of baloney, and there are dozens of scholars that refute him. There are dozens of verses of NT misquotes of OT scripture that apologists like the OP must spin a story around in order to make them appear more viable, instead of a complete departure from the OT meaning.

Further, it is misleading to title a thread "How the New Testament quotes the Old Testament" and then not expect differing opinions. Perhaps it should have been entitled "A book that supports what I think about how the NT quotes the OT." It would have been much clearer that viewpoints other than those of the OP are not welcome. Or even if the request in the original post had stated, "confine your responses to biblical references only."

Did the NT utilize OT quotes, of course, and frequently they were quoted with an agenda. Since the OP cannot handle other historical sources, I won't bother to quote any other than those already listed. I just suggest that a casual reader of this thread recognize that if you "muzzle the ox when he treadeth on the corn" (Deut 25:4), then someone must not believe Paul's statement regarding that verse "Doth God take care for oxen?" (I Cor 9:9). Instead, you choose what food should be allowed the ox or anyone else. Feed him when you wish, starve him when you do not. God can't handle it Himself.

And that type of muzzling, IMO, indicates an agenda rather than an honest forum for discussion and debate. An absolute indication that Paul is still alive and well.

Sum perfectus

Last edited by Wardendresden; 10-21-2013 at 10:42 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2013, 10:20 PM
 
5,733 posts, read 4,647,352 times
Reputation: 1860
An interesting point with regard to different interpretations and different methodologies for interpretation is that it reflects or comes close to the fallacy of equivocation - it may not exactly fit since the term may not be used within the same discourse in a different way but sometimes a term is used in many different ways in order to draw the conclusion one desires. If a verse is so ambiguous as to render such varied results then that ambiguity is such because the terms can and are being used in different ways at different times and sometimes in the same discourse in the larger context called the 'Bible.'

By having such varied interpretations and methods it forces the verses to be, by such practices, ambiguous and when ambiguity enters a discourse it makes it difficult to form an interpretaion or conclusion that is absolute or that approaches any level of specificity whereby we can be confident in knowing what actually was intended.

This is ironic since the introduction of such varied methods and interpretations is meant to come up with an interpetation that allows the believer to skirt any possible rebutal or accusation of contradiction or error within the text. But by doing so they just render the whole thing ambiguously irrelevent leaving the reader without any confidence in what the intendtion of the writer actually was. If anything goes nothing is certain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top