We begin this chapter of the Bible with a talking snake, not Satan (as I'd always been taught), convincing Eve that she will, in fact, not die if she eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As it turns out, the serpent is correct. God, however, punishes not only Eve, for disobedience, but Adam, for listening to his wife, and the rest of mankind for, well, for being born. And, it's not just a small punishment, either; the high points include a nasty little trait called mortality and increased pain in childbirth for the ladies! Oh yeah, and not just for the original sinners, but for all their descendants and for all time. That's pretty harsh!
Now, I have a few questions, and they pertain mainly to the idea of fairness. Specifically, is it fair for God to punish all of humanity for the actions of two people? Most Christians would say this is where the concepts of original sin and sin nature derive from, and we'll cover those in more depth in a moment. But for now, just consider the idea that from my view, it is immoral to punish someone for the actions of another, especially if those actions were committed thousands of years in the past. If God is, as believers claim, benevolent (intending or showing kindness), then how does this punishment make sense? It would be akin to me punishing not only my son for not cleaning his room, but also my grandchildren, great-grandchildren, et cetera. How is this moral? Also, if God is omniscient (all-knowing), he must have known that Adam and Eve would disobey him, so why bother creating them in the first place? It's like the late Gene Roddenberry is reported to have said, "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
Which leads naturally into the concept of original sin. Most Christian sects believe in some form of original sin (the notable exception is the Mormons), though it has, in some Protestant circles been supplanted by the term "sin nature." Either way, it is the concept that humans are, by nature of their descending from Adam and Eve, flawed from the beginning. To Catholics, the entire human race is to be held accountable for the sins of Adam and Eve, as well as their own. They are, as Augustine said, "utterly depraved in nature." It is because of this idea that Catholics adopted the idea of Limbo. After all, what would a benevolent God do with all those poor, dead infants, too young to have sinned themselves, yet burdened with this idea of inherited sin? It strikes me as a bit of a cop-out (not officially part of Catholic dogma, I was surprised to find) designed to assuage the guilt of believers who are unable to reconcile their loving God with creating a set of rules that would damn babies (and fetuses and sperm, for that matter) to eternal suffering through no fault of their own.
Holding a somewhat more modern, progressive view are the proponents of man's having a sin nature. By this view, we are not held accountable for the sins of our ancestors, but rather, we are unable
to lead perfect, sin-free lives because we descended from them. Adam and Eve were created perfect, though, I guess not quite perfect enough. Once they sinned, they became flawed, and passed this along to all their descendants. Sin nature is all about desire. We want, as humans, to sin, and only through the grace of God are we able to overcome those desires. Some have even tried to draw a connection between sin nature and the presence of genes that code for a predisposition towards alcoholism and other "sinful" conditions. I am, of course, skeptical, though I admit it would lend a small level of credence to this aspect of Christian theology.
Whichever view you take, this is the first time we start to see some of the personality of God. Prior to Genesis 3, he is merely a creator, albeit of everything. Now, he is seen to be taking an active role in his creation, dealing with humans directly, walking and talking with them, commanding them to behave a certain way, punishing them when they don't... As a character in this book, God is becoming more complex. It'll be interesting to see what comes next.
One final note, this from a literary criticism view, this chapter ends with an incredibly striking image, that of a group of angels (cherubim) and a flaming sword guarding the entrance to the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life. It's breathtaking, even for an atheist, to picture Adam and Eve, having lost so much for all humanity, leaving their home to build a life in what was a very different world already. Whoever wrote this part of the Bible certainly had a flair for the dramatic.
Next time, Genesis Chapters 4 and 5, wherein we learn what Nino Brown meant when he said, "Am I my brother's keeper?"
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Genesis Chapter 2: The Creation of Man and Woman
Once God had created the entire universe, he decided to take a well-deserved rest, so he blessed the seventh day, probably not realizing that, several millennia later, a group of Christians would found an entire sect on the idea that he meant Saturday and not Sunday. Of course, considering the book of Genesis was a Jewish holy book before it was a Christian one, that Jews honor the Sabbath on Saturday has me thinking the Adventists might be correct on this point.
More interesting, though, is the apparent contradiction between the creation stories in the first and second chapters. While I covered in my last blog that God created Adam on the sixth day, Genesis 2:5-7 states, "No no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground..." By my reading, this clearly places the creation of Adam squarely on the third day, but I'm willing to listen to differing views.
I was hoping, after Genesis 2:10-14, to be able to pinpoint the actual location of the Garden of Eden, but from the research I've done, this seems to be a more complex task than I would've thought. Apparently, I was given false hope by the fact that two of the rivers mentioned, Tigris and Euphrates, are still in existence, but evidently the other two are not, which makes pinpointing difficult at best. Most people agree that it was located in what is modern-day Iraq, though arguments have been made for Sumer, Iran, and even Jerusalem. The two most absurd prospects (I leave it to you to decide which wins that title), are The Isle of Lewis and Jackson County, Missouri.
Finally, I noticed that the Bible is already starting to lay the groundwork for what can only be described as a blatant contempt for women. It is only after Adam is unable to find a suitable "helper" (Genesis 2:18) from all of the beasts and birds, that God creates said helper, though out of one of the man's ribs. Adam is, of course, on board with this, and as it was his job to name all God's creatures, even this one, he calls her "Woman, because she was taken out of Man" (Genesis 2:23). I can see that we are, at some point, going to have a discussion of women's roles in ancient society, and I'm not looking forward to it. Suffice it to say that I've read ahead a little, and a lot of bad stuff gets blamed on this first woman. I, for one, think she may have gotten a bad rap.
Up next, Genesis Chapter 3, wherein things take a turn for the worse.
More interesting, though, is the apparent contradiction between the creation stories in the first and second chapters. While I covered in my last blog that God created Adam on the sixth day, Genesis 2:5-7 states, "No no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground..." By my reading, this clearly places the creation of Adam squarely on the third day, but I'm willing to listen to differing views.
I was hoping, after Genesis 2:10-14, to be able to pinpoint the actual location of the Garden of Eden, but from the research I've done, this seems to be a more complex task than I would've thought. Apparently, I was given false hope by the fact that two of the rivers mentioned, Tigris and Euphrates, are still in existence, but evidently the other two are not, which makes pinpointing difficult at best. Most people agree that it was located in what is modern-day Iraq, though arguments have been made for Sumer, Iran, and even Jerusalem. The two most absurd prospects (I leave it to you to decide which wins that title), are The Isle of Lewis and Jackson County, Missouri.
Finally, I noticed that the Bible is already starting to lay the groundwork for what can only be described as a blatant contempt for women. It is only after Adam is unable to find a suitable "helper" (Genesis 2:18) from all of the beasts and birds, that God creates said helper, though out of one of the man's ribs. Adam is, of course, on board with this, and as it was his job to name all God's creatures, even this one, he calls her "Woman, because she was taken out of Man" (Genesis 2:23). I can see that we are, at some point, going to have a discussion of women's roles in ancient society, and I'm not looking forward to it. Suffice it to say that I've read ahead a little, and a lot of bad stuff gets blamed on this first woman. I, for one, think she may have gotten a bad rap.
Up next, Genesis Chapter 3, wherein things take a turn for the worse.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Genesis Chapter 1 - The Creation
This chapter covers creation of heaven and Earth, and within this relatively short section, I found three interesting points. The Bible claims the Earth was created in six days, God uses the plural forms to describe himself, and he created more than two people. One of these statements seems at odds with what we know to be true in the modern age, another is a lesson for me in humility and the third is different than what I had always been taught.
First up is the creation of the entire universe in six days. When reading this section, I found it to be poetic, as a lot of ancient language is, but once I focused on what was being said, I found a few inconsistencies. The text describes a single being creating existence itself, something that's logically challenging at best. If nothing exists, then where does God fit into that? He must be, by definition, supernatural. That may be stating the obvious, but I think it bears saying, if only to show that creationists want us to accept a model of the universe that includes facets that are, by their very nature, outside the laws of the universe. They also seem to find this comforting, whereas I think it's highly unsettling to consider a being that exists outside the physical laws everything else is compelled to obey. The text also seems to be hampered by a pre-scientific view of the universe, opting for a geocentric view. My specific objection? Night and day are created on the first day, yet the sun and moon aren't created until the fourth. We know now that it's the Earth's rotation that creates night and day, not the Sun and Moon's movements. Based on this alone, it seems to me that we may only ascribe the Genesis creation story the same level of respect as other creation myths, of which, there are many. Of course, as a materialist, I'm more likely to think that the Earth was created roughly 4.5 billion years ago through the process of accreation, a position I believe is supported by current physical evidence such as radiometric dating, but that's just me (and the vast majority of the scientific community).
When I got to Genesis 1:26 (Then God said , "Let Us make man in Our image...), my first thought was, what?! We're not even off the first page, and already God's admitting to being a polytheist?! I had no idea! You see, I had always been taught that Christianity was monotheistic in nature. Once we get to Jesus, we'll have to deal with the whole 'Holy Trinity' business, but this is pre-Christian, Old Testament God, and he's using plural forms? I thought I was on to something. And I was wrong. I did a little basic research, and I found two competing viewpoints. First, and less believable, are those who claim that this is proof of the truth of the Bible, in that it predicts the Holy Trinity over a thousand years before its existence. The second, much more plausible explanation, is that it all comes down to translation. I found this excellent blog entry, which basically explains that "the Hebrew plural is often used for a singular noun to denote "a 'plural' of majesty or excellence"". The author explains his position rationally, and then supports it with numerous citations of others who support the view. I found it to be astute, well-reasoned, and entirely convincing. I also realized that there are going to be times during this project that I may think I've stumbled onto some fresh, new perspective that no one else has ever considered before, and in that view, I am almost certainly mistaken.
Finally, we come to the creation of man. As I was raised Lutheran, we were always taught that God created one man, Adam, and out of his rib, one woman, Eve. It fell, then, for the two of them to populate the Earth, a concept that always nagged at me, even as a child. It needn't have, because had I just read the Bible, it says right there in Genesis 1:26, "Let Us make Man in Our own image, according to our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea..." [my emphasis added] It seems pretty apparent to me that God is using the form of man meaning, "the human race." Also, considering that I find it highly unlikely that the first two humans would be encouraging their own children to interbreed (nevermind the genetic implications therein), it's seems to me much more plausible that while Adam and Eve were the first humans created by God, as we'll see in the next section, there were likely not the only ones, merely the only ones worth mentioning.
So, having made it through the first chapter of Genesis, I've realized that I need to be taking much smaller chunks of the Bible if I'm going to be writing this level of commentary on it. I hope everyone will forgive me then, for changing the schedule for this week.
Coming up next, Genesis Chapter 2, wherein we take a closer look at some key figures.
First up is the creation of the entire universe in six days. When reading this section, I found it to be poetic, as a lot of ancient language is, but once I focused on what was being said, I found a few inconsistencies. The text describes a single being creating existence itself, something that's logically challenging at best. If nothing exists, then where does God fit into that? He must be, by definition, supernatural. That may be stating the obvious, but I think it bears saying, if only to show that creationists want us to accept a model of the universe that includes facets that are, by their very nature, outside the laws of the universe. They also seem to find this comforting, whereas I think it's highly unsettling to consider a being that exists outside the physical laws everything else is compelled to obey. The text also seems to be hampered by a pre-scientific view of the universe, opting for a geocentric view. My specific objection? Night and day are created on the first day, yet the sun and moon aren't created until the fourth. We know now that it's the Earth's rotation that creates night and day, not the Sun and Moon's movements. Based on this alone, it seems to me that we may only ascribe the Genesis creation story the same level of respect as other creation myths, of which, there are many. Of course, as a materialist, I'm more likely to think that the Earth was created roughly 4.5 billion years ago through the process of accreation, a position I believe is supported by current physical evidence such as radiometric dating, but that's just me (and the vast majority of the scientific community).
When I got to Genesis 1:26 (Then God said , "Let Us make man in Our image...), my first thought was, what?! We're not even off the first page, and already God's admitting to being a polytheist?! I had no idea! You see, I had always been taught that Christianity was monotheistic in nature. Once we get to Jesus, we'll have to deal with the whole 'Holy Trinity' business, but this is pre-Christian, Old Testament God, and he's using plural forms? I thought I was on to something. And I was wrong. I did a little basic research, and I found two competing viewpoints. First, and less believable, are those who claim that this is proof of the truth of the Bible, in that it predicts the Holy Trinity over a thousand years before its existence. The second, much more plausible explanation, is that it all comes down to translation. I found this excellent blog entry, which basically explains that "the Hebrew plural is often used for a singular noun to denote "a 'plural' of majesty or excellence"". The author explains his position rationally, and then supports it with numerous citations of others who support the view. I found it to be astute, well-reasoned, and entirely convincing. I also realized that there are going to be times during this project that I may think I've stumbled onto some fresh, new perspective that no one else has ever considered before, and in that view, I am almost certainly mistaken.
Finally, we come to the creation of man. As I was raised Lutheran, we were always taught that God created one man, Adam, and out of his rib, one woman, Eve. It fell, then, for the two of them to populate the Earth, a concept that always nagged at me, even as a child. It needn't have, because had I just read the Bible, it says right there in Genesis 1:26, "Let Us make Man in Our own image, according to our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea..." [my emphasis added] It seems pretty apparent to me that God is using the form of man meaning, "the human race." Also, considering that I find it highly unlikely that the first two humans would be encouraging their own children to interbreed (nevermind the genetic implications therein), it's seems to me much more plausible that while Adam and Eve were the first humans created by God, as we'll see in the next section, there were likely not the only ones, merely the only ones worth mentioning.
So, having made it through the first chapter of Genesis, I've realized that I need to be taking much smaller chunks of the Bible if I'm going to be writing this level of commentary on it. I hope everyone will forgive me then, for changing the schedule for this week.
Coming up next, Genesis Chapter 2, wherein we take a closer look at some key figures.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
A Few Brief Notes
* This blog post started out as an introduction to Genesis Chapters 1 and 2, but considering its length, I decided to separate it out and make it its own entry. I still plan on having the post on Genesis up tomorrow sometime, so don't panic...!
When I set out to read the Bible, I knew eventually some of my previously held notions would be challenged, but I had no idea that time would come even before I got to the first chapter of Genesis. In trying to be as thorough as possible, I wanted to get some historical context about when the earliest books were written. I chose, as a jumping off point, the standard reference manual for 21st Century research, Wikipedia. Before any of you start bemoaning all the weaknesses of an online, open-source, collaborative encyclopedia, I am of the opinion that it is, for the most part, nearly as reliable as the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica, as this 2005 study in the journal Nature found. Therefore, I have no qualms using it as one of my sources on this project. If, as we go along, anyone has some evidence that my sources are inaccurate, please post your corrections in the comments, and I'll be more than happy to discuss them. In my mind, this is a collaborative effort, and in the end, we'll all be a little smarter, if not more enlightened.
Continuing, I found two facts regarding Genesis that I was previously unaware. First, that the oldest copy still in existence dates from 150 BCE and 70 CE. I had always thought that there were copies of the Bible that had been around since near the beginning (4004 BCE, according to the Ussher chronology), but it seems that's not correct. On reflection, that belief may sound naive, but the church I attended as a child didn't spend a lot of time covering the history of biblical manuscripts. Even if you accept the authorship of Genesis as being sometime around 1491 BCE, that still leaves a LOT of time between the actual events and their first recording, but more on that in a moment. The accepted process of creating a handwritten copy of the Torah would seem to lend credibility to the idea that the text has remained unchanged over the millennia. Challenging the textual accuracy of ancient manuscripts is beyond the scope of this project, so I'll be, in a sense, taking the Bible at its word.
Second, Christians and Jews tend to believe Genesis (along with the other four books of the Pentateuch) were written by Moses. Wh-wha-what?! I always assumed the Bible was an oral history that had been handed down over the generations until someone finally had the sense to put quill to parchment, but I never knew who. After all, we have no idea who wrote Beowulf, right? It seems that, in the case of the Torah, that someone was Moses, he of the parting the waters, golden calf, and not-quite-making-it-to-the-Promised-Land fame. I guess he's as good a candidate as anyone, considering he also reportedly received the Ten Commandments directly from God. I just had no idea that people of faith actually believe they know the author of their holiest book, especially considering he's one of the main characters. It would be akin to opening a Stephen King novel, only to find within a character named Stephen King, a creepy, semi-reclusive, obscenely prolific author of horror novels. But we'll get to Moses later.
I can only hope that the I will continue to find out more along these lines as this project continues. Those of you who are still wondering why a person like me would even consider trying to read the entire Bible, these examples go a long way towards explaining it. So many people have used the words in this book and the history behind it to guide their lives, and to affect the lives of others. I just want to understand what's driving that motivation.
So, with all that said, my next entry will, in fact, be on Genesis Chapters 1 & 2, where all things are created, though not necessarily equal.
When I set out to read the Bible, I knew eventually some of my previously held notions would be challenged, but I had no idea that time would come even before I got to the first chapter of Genesis. In trying to be as thorough as possible, I wanted to get some historical context about when the earliest books were written. I chose, as a jumping off point, the standard reference manual for 21st Century research, Wikipedia. Before any of you start bemoaning all the weaknesses of an online, open-source, collaborative encyclopedia, I am of the opinion that it is, for the most part, nearly as reliable as the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica, as this 2005 study in the journal Nature found. Therefore, I have no qualms using it as one of my sources on this project. If, as we go along, anyone has some evidence that my sources are inaccurate, please post your corrections in the comments, and I'll be more than happy to discuss them. In my mind, this is a collaborative effort, and in the end, we'll all be a little smarter, if not more enlightened.
Continuing, I found two facts regarding Genesis that I was previously unaware. First, that the oldest copy still in existence dates from 150 BCE and 70 CE. I had always thought that there were copies of the Bible that had been around since near the beginning (4004 BCE, according to the Ussher chronology), but it seems that's not correct. On reflection, that belief may sound naive, but the church I attended as a child didn't spend a lot of time covering the history of biblical manuscripts. Even if you accept the authorship of Genesis as being sometime around 1491 BCE, that still leaves a LOT of time between the actual events and their first recording, but more on that in a moment. The accepted process of creating a handwritten copy of the Torah would seem to lend credibility to the idea that the text has remained unchanged over the millennia. Challenging the textual accuracy of ancient manuscripts is beyond the scope of this project, so I'll be, in a sense, taking the Bible at its word.
Second, Christians and Jews tend to believe Genesis (along with the other four books of the Pentateuch) were written by Moses. Wh-wha-what?! I always assumed the Bible was an oral history that had been handed down over the generations until someone finally had the sense to put quill to parchment, but I never knew who. After all, we have no idea who wrote Beowulf, right? It seems that, in the case of the Torah, that someone was Moses, he of the parting the waters, golden calf, and not-quite-making-it-to-the-Promised-Land fame. I guess he's as good a candidate as anyone, considering he also reportedly received the Ten Commandments directly from God. I just had no idea that people of faith actually believe they know the author of their holiest book, especially considering he's one of the main characters. It would be akin to opening a Stephen King novel, only to find within a character named Stephen King, a creepy, semi-reclusive, obscenely prolific author of horror novels. But we'll get to Moses later.
I can only hope that the I will continue to find out more along these lines as this project continues. Those of you who are still wondering why a person like me would even consider trying to read the entire Bible, these examples go a long way towards explaining it. So many people have used the words in this book and the history behind it to guide their lives, and to affect the lives of others. I just want to understand what's driving that motivation.
So, with all that said, my next entry will, in fact, be on Genesis Chapters 1 & 2, where all things are created, though not necessarily equal.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Why Would I Want to Read the Bible?
It's a valid question. I am, by my own admission, a strident atheist. Why would I want to take the next year or so and explore the main document of what I consider to be, essentially, Bronze-Age mythology rum amok? The short, glib answer I normally give is, "Know thy enemy" [Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th Century BCE], but the truth is a little more complex than that.
Many believers I know look to the Bible as a source of great knowledge. They tend not to be extremists; in fact, most of them are otherwise rational. They just have this blind spot where belief is concerned, and I'm curious about a piece of literature that could inspire such a thing. There are those who would suggest that the answers all life's questions can be found in the Bible, but I think that attitude leads to a lack of curiosity that cannot possibly be healthy. I do, though, wonder what answers are to be found within.
I've heard it said that less than ten percent of Christians have actually read the Bible, and if that's accurate, I find that to be very puzzling. If I was going to base my belief system on a single book, you can be damn sure I would read it. All of it. Maybe twice. It follows, then, that if I'm going to say that Christians are wrong, that their holy book is really just an ancient piece of historical fiction, I should probably know exactly what it is I'm against.
There's a small part of me that wants to be more knowledgeable about the Bible strictly for bragging rights, the same way I want to run a marathon and hike the Appalachian Trail. I want to do it because not many people have. It is, after all, the best-selling book of all time [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books]. There have been more copies of the Bible printed than there are people alive on the planet today, and I find that to be an amazing statistic. Whether it's the inerrant word of God or not, it's still a remarkable piece of literature, and well worth my time. At least, I hope it is.
So my plan is simply this: I will read the Bible, in its entirety, beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelations, or "soup to nuts," as my mom would say. I'll break it up into small, digestible chunks, and every week or so, I'll report back here what I've found. Ideally, I would read it in the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, but considering I don't have the four years or so I'd need to get a degree in Dead Languages, I'll be using an English translation, specifically, the New American Standard Bible. While there are problems with every translation, this one seems a little easier to read than the venerable King James Version. Also, since I'm approaching this as a student, rather than someone seeking absolute truth or dogmatic justification, small differences in language shouldn't prove too troubling. Finally, I was recently given a copy as a gift from a Christian friend (thanks, Jon!), and it would seem disrespectful not to use that copy.
I welcome your comments, I just ask that you keep them on-topic and respectful. For those of you wanting to read along, at the end of each blog entry, I'll include my plan for the next week's post, but keep in mind, real life will always take precedence, so don't be disappointed if the plan changes from time to time. Thanks in advance for your attention!
Next week's topic: Genesis Chapters 1 and 2, in which all things are created.
Many believers I know look to the Bible as a source of great knowledge. They tend not to be extremists; in fact, most of them are otherwise rational. They just have this blind spot where belief is concerned, and I'm curious about a piece of literature that could inspire such a thing. There are those who would suggest that the answers all life's questions can be found in the Bible, but I think that attitude leads to a lack of curiosity that cannot possibly be healthy. I do, though, wonder what answers are to be found within.
I've heard it said that less than ten percent of Christians have actually read the Bible, and if that's accurate, I find that to be very puzzling. If I was going to base my belief system on a single book, you can be damn sure I would read it. All of it. Maybe twice. It follows, then, that if I'm going to say that Christians are wrong, that their holy book is really just an ancient piece of historical fiction, I should probably know exactly what it is I'm against.
There's a small part of me that wants to be more knowledgeable about the Bible strictly for bragging rights, the same way I want to run a marathon and hike the Appalachian Trail. I want to do it because not many people have. It is, after all, the best-selling book of all time [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books]. There have been more copies of the Bible printed than there are people alive on the planet today, and I find that to be an amazing statistic. Whether it's the inerrant word of God or not, it's still a remarkable piece of literature, and well worth my time. At least, I hope it is.
So my plan is simply this: I will read the Bible, in its entirety, beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelations, or "soup to nuts," as my mom would say. I'll break it up into small, digestible chunks, and every week or so, I'll report back here what I've found. Ideally, I would read it in the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, but considering I don't have the four years or so I'd need to get a degree in Dead Languages, I'll be using an English translation, specifically, the New American Standard Bible. While there are problems with every translation, this one seems a little easier to read than the venerable King James Version. Also, since I'm approaching this as a student, rather than someone seeking absolute truth or dogmatic justification, small differences in language shouldn't prove too troubling. Finally, I was recently given a copy as a gift from a Christian friend (thanks, Jon!), and it would seem disrespectful not to use that copy.
I welcome your comments, I just ask that you keep them on-topic and respectful. For those of you wanting to read along, at the end of each blog entry, I'll include my plan for the next week's post, but keep in mind, real life will always take precedence, so don't be disappointed if the plan changes from time to time. Thanks in advance for your attention!
Next week's topic: Genesis Chapters 1 and 2, in which all things are created.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
