Richard_yaash

Thank you Jeremiah7...

Matthew 18:15-17

Hmmm, no wonder I'm gittin a lil' stiff Now, if I hop off o' dis fence, do I hop right or do I hop left? Maybe I better git Hopper to give me some ribbeting advice before hopping on me own. Cuz I can certainly see trouble on the horizon here!!! What was it about red skies in the morning sailors take warning? I think that warning has a double entendre to it: Cuz I got Scarlet [red] prayers [up to the skies/heavens] in da morning, I better take heed to da warning on dis o' one.

I have pondered that one as well Suzanne. IMO: It may require quite an indepth discussion to delve into that simple verse. Good point though.

Well said JudgeofGod. Rev 21:14.

Father is av [ab] in both Hebrew and Aramaic. In Aramaic abba means 'my father'. In Hebrew avi [abi] means 'my father'. You will also hear abba used in the Urdu dialect of Hindustani [if memory serves]. The Urdu dialect is made up predominently of Arabic loanwords. BTW: Good post Openly Curious.

What? Did you appreciate it as a door stop? Sounds like a perfectly good use for it to me

I have had a few seaweeds, some were actually good. It's just too bad that not everyone can appreciate the finer things in life. Must have been really hard on you LadyPearTree to have been so unappreciated

Oy! With help like that who needs enemies Now you've gone and done it though. This is gonna require a 141 page thread on seaweed as an alga and whether or not it is considered as a green sea bearing plant and therefore given as food

For myself, I do not see a need to do so. In fact I see it more like shooting 'craps'. I wouldn't make a decision based upon that either.

Well spoken Ddavid.

You would! I used to do that as well.

I'm sure if it's a good thing, but I can actually relate to that I'm just not sure if I ever returned to pick it up or not. Remember "Young Frankenstein" with Gene Wilder? Abby Normal

Egyptology has been a hobby of mine on and off over the years as well and I do not recall such either. However, that is not to say that I could not have missed it, for that was never a particular focus of mine either.

For myself, it is only when I allow 'stuff' to get in the way. Otherwise, I would be quite indignant when there are still so many opportunities to be assisting/helping/blessing others.

Naw, the poor lil tame' possums are all safe now. That was back in my former life, before I knew a possum even could be tame'

I agree!!! I didn't say I like it Didn't really care for skunk either.

Touch

It is very interesting. Consider if you will 1 Corinthians 6:16. Divorce only effects it from a legal aspect. The bond of/in the flesh is until death. We would have to define this much better than above. I will however assume you are referring to worst case scenarios of extreme abuse/neglect/etc..

Concurred. And possibly other/another reason.

Touch

According to the two manuscripts I have, the nikudim are in accord. However as it is merely an inflected pronoun due to the conjugation it doesn't IMO have much bearing upon the text in this instance [i will attest to some instances in which it may]. The qal of this verb is third person. That is, without the nikudim [vowel points] it defaults to being third person. This passage IMO could be rendered without the inflected pronoun. As for being an idiom, this I do not see. I further agree that within the text, there is no distinction made.

I would be more than happy to transliterate it here so that we may examine it closely.

I strongly disagree. However I see where you have spoken of this more so I will reply further there. I will agree with the gist of this however. I am not in complete accord.

With this I agree with you Sherman. More correctly, I agree with what the Scriptures have to say upon the topic. It is taking a situation which is already bad enough and turning it into an abomination. Though I understand what you are saying, I am not in full accord here. Under the 'liberal' school of thought, a man was allowed to divorce for such ludicrous reasons as she burnt his toast. That IMO was not the intent of the law and would indeed be breaking faith with one's wife. A man involved in such a divorce would indeed be dealing/acting treacherously toward the woman. IMO the intent would cover two parties completely unable to get along. Let's say such as a wife guilty of adultery. Perhaps even to the extent of a contentious wife [No offense ladies]. The above seems to me to be merely conjecture with no corroborating evidence. Mark 6:18 For John had been saying to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother