I would say yes. I think that the second creation story, Gen ch 2, had that as a basic theme for a reason--so women would be under authority due to gender.
I dont think that Eve was placed "under" Adam so much as Adam was given the responsibility of Eve. Remember he is the one that denied any copability in the whole "apple" affair, and blamed it all on Eve. So then in the "fall" Adam was given a huge majority of the responsibility of his wife. If I remember correctly without going back some pages to find it, man was charged with the protection of the woman and if he died his sons were responsible for her. So it wasn't so much that woman was made lower than man but she was removed from the equation so man could not blame her for his own actions any more. That of course backfired because today Eve is blamed for the entire fall of man.
I dont think that Eve was placed "under" Adam so much as Adam was given the responsibility of Eve. Remember he is the one that denied any copability in the whole "apple" affair, and blamed it all on Eve. So then in the "fall" Adam was given a huge majority of the responsibility of his wife. If I remember correctly without going back some pages to find it, man was charged with the protection of the woman and if he died his sons were responsible for her. So it wasn't so much that woman was made lower than man but she was removed from the equation so man could not blame her for his own actions any more. That of course backfired because today Eve is blamed for the entire fall of man.
Good point, Eyes!
As for the OT being viewed as history rather than the will of God in action - this makes a lot of sense to me... We can learn a lot from the history, but without the understanding of the culture of the time it just doesn't make a lot of sense...
Things like that are all over the place in our own history books. Without the understanding of social interactions and customs of the times, the reasons of wars, political upheavals, etc, don't make any sense, even a couple of hundred years ago. Or even looking at current events such as what is happening in foreign countries.
Just because culture dicates something doesn't mean it is right or wrong, or even God's will. There are some groups that believe it is God's will to kill their daughters in "honor killings" because they were kidnapped and possibly raped. They are not viewed as victims, but as bringing disgrace upon their families. You may not even be able to document this tradition in this culture's own holy books, but it still happens and is still viewed as God's will.
So many things are blamed/credited to God who probably had absolutely nothing to do with it. I think many of these records in the OT reflect this.
Someone in twi once said to me that the culture of the time was based on God's will, and by studying the "orientalisms" involved we could uncover the truth behind the culture... Makes it sound like we should all be living as they did in the OT then, doesn't it? I don't ascribe to this view. I think by understanding the culture we can better understand some of the records - but if the actions of the people mentioned in the history - if they are "good" or "evil" or just plain stupid - has to be judged on their own merits.
Was it accepted by culture in the OT to have multiple wives as king? yes. Was it accepted according to the law given by God? No. Deu 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. (in reference to the king.)
Obviously there were some who obeyed culture and not the Laws set out by God. (David, Solomon, to name a couple.) Just because these were "Men of God" doesn't mean that what they did was right in the sight of God.
We had the same problem in twi - we (ok, at least I) thought that everything the "MOG" did had to be right, even if it didn't make sense or line up with the what the Bible said...
As for the OT being viewed as history rather than the will of God in action - this makes a lot of sense to me... We can learn a lot from the history, but without the understanding of the culture of the time it just doesn't make a lot of sense...
Things like that are all over the place in our own history books. Without the understanding of social interactions and customs of the times, the reasons of wars, political upheavals, etc, don't make any sense, even a couple of hundred years ago. Or even looking at current events such as what is happening in foreign countries.
Just because culture dicates something doesn't mean it is right or wrong, or even God's will. There are some groups that believe it is God's will to kill their daughters in "honor killings" because they were kidnapped and possibly raped. They are not viewed as victims, but as bringing disgrace upon their families. You may not even be able to document this tradition in this culture's own holy books, but it still happens and is still viewed as God's will.
So many things are blamed/credited to God who probably had absolutely nothing to do with it. I think many of these records in the OT reflect this.
Someone in twi once said to me that the culture of the time was based on God's will, and by studying the "orientalisms" involved we could uncover the truth behind the culture... Makes it sound like we should all be living as they did in the OT then, doesn't it? I don't ascribe to this view. I think by understanding the culture we can better understand some of the records - but if the actions of the people mentioned in the history - if they are "good" or "evil" or just plain stupid - has to be judged on their own merits.
Was it accepted by culture in the OT to have multiple wives as king? yes. Was it accepted according to the law given by God? No. Deu 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. (in reference to the king.)
Obviously there were some who obeyed culture and not the Laws set out by God. (David, Solomon, to name a couple.) Just because these were "Men of God" doesn't mean that what they did was right in the sight of God.
We had the same problem in twi - we (ok, at least I) thought that everything the "MOG" did had to be right, even if it didn't make sense or line up with the what the Bible said...
Wow! I couldn't have said it better myself, hmmm...I didn't...but you did. Excellent post! Do you mind if I copy it for future reference? It's not like it would be the first one of your posts that I have copied. Hehe Between you and Abi and several others my file cabinet runneth over! But that's a good thing.
So if we are going to act upon the premise that the OT is mostly history and that not everything in reflects God's will then where does the question of the Bible denegrading women fit in?
Wow! I couldn't have said it better myself, hmmm...I didn't...but you did. Excellent post! Do you mind if I copy it for future reference? It's not like it would be the first one of your posts that I have copied. Hehe Between you and Abi and several others my file cabinet runneth over! But that's a good thing.
So if we are going to act upon the premise that the OT is mostly history and that not everything in reflects God's will then where does the question of the Bible denegrading women fit in?
Take what you want! I'm giving it out for free!!
As for the question of the Bible denegrading women... I think most of the denegrading can be tied into the culture of the time and not the specifically the commandments given to them by God. Since the Bible was edited by MALES and MEN were the ones who put together the final canon, I think we can be assured that at least SOME of their male-dominated society viewpoints crept in to what was seleceted and what wasn't...
I would love to spend some time reading some of the other books that were rejected from the final cut - it would be interesting what was considered as holy writings prior to that editing process.
Was it the Counsel of Nicea where that canon was set? I can't remember... but that specific Counsel, if not all of them had a definite political agenda as well as a spiritual one!
As for the question of the Bible denegrading women... I think most of the denegrading can be tied into the culture of the time and not the specifically the commandments given to them by God. Since the Bible was edited by MALES and MEN were the ones who put together the final canon, I think we can be assured that at least SOME of their male-dominated society viewpoints crept in to what was seleceted and what wasn't...
I would love to spend some time reading some of the other books that were rejected from the final cut - it would be interesting what was considered as holy writings prior to that editing process.
Was it the Counsel of Nicea where that canon was set? I can't remember... but that specific Counsel, if not all of them had a definite political agenda as well as a spiritual one!
I think that is quite right the men made the rules and organized the Bible so the oppressive culture probably did slip into the translations of the Bible.
It was the Council of Nicaea that the books were voted on. I am looking for the link that states the Canons that came out of it. But here is a link to the Council of Elvira where the Church decided on all sorts of ways to degrade, segregate and made different rules and punishments for women.
I posted some other links back on page 3 I think that will take you to a website that would link you to the Gospel of Mary. I will try and find the others.
In Gen ch 3 God tells them that her husband will rule her. Sounds like she lost any autonomy she had at that point. But I certainly can see men/teachers doctoring their creation story to fit their cultural beliefs and ways.
You are correct in that is what God told EVE. But was it intended for all women or just her? Some would say it was never meant to have been for all women. In Judaism it is said it was Eve's punishment and it was passed down. Then throughout Genesis various women began the process of undoing that "punishment". Abraham was told to listen to Sarah. Rebecca knew who the true heir was supposed to be, etc.
You are correct in that is what God told EVE. But was it intended for all women or just her? Some would say it was never meant to have been for all women. In Judaism it is said it was Eve's punishment and it was passed down. Then throughout Genesis various women began the process of undoing that "punishment". Abraham was told to listen to Sarah. Rebecca knew who the true heir was supposed to be, etc.
I think it would be more just that the punishement was Eve's not all womens.
You are correct in that is what God told EVE. But was it intended for all women or just her? Some would say it was never meant to have been for all women. In Judaism it is said it was Eve's punishment and it was passed down. Then throughout Genesis various women began the process of undoing that "punishment". Abraham was told to listen to Sarah. Rebecca knew who the true heir was supposed to be, etc.
And I guess the final overcoming of the "punishment" would logically follow in Genesis 3:15 regarding the seed of the woman crushing the head of the serpent...
Also interesting is that the serpent was associated with goddess beliefs, with renewel, healing and rebirth in the ancient world. Also eternity, symbolized by the snake forming a circle with its tail.
You are correct in that is what God told EVE. But was it intended for all women or just her? Some would say it was never meant to have been for all women. In Judaism it is said it was Eve's punishment and it was passed down. Then throughout Genesis various women began the process of undoing that "punishment". Abraham was told to listen to Sarah. Rebecca knew who the true heir was supposed to be, etc.
Alright here's my amok for the day...part of the punishment must have been passed down from Eve to othe women because women still have pain while giving birth.
Well I figured I'd go back to the research for a few.
Rashi says the section in Genesis 3 regarding the woman's desire being to her husband and him ruling over her refers to the woman'sl desire for intimacy with her husband, but in intimacy the husband will "rule" because it is something that cannot be demanded. In other words, we desire intimacy, but we cannot demand it, the man must give it freely.
Well I figured I'd go back to the research for a few.
Rashi says the section in Genesis 3 regarding the woman's desire being to her husband and him ruling over her refers to the woman'sl desire for intimacy with her husband, but in intimacy the husband will "rule" because it is something that cannot be demanded. In other words, we desire intimacy, but we cannot demand it, the man must give it freely.
This might tie in with the whole "naked" and knew it not bit... Now they had things to hide from each other.
Does Judaism view women in the role of submissive similar to some Christian doctrines? Are women to obey their husbands?
I think it is entirely possible there are some who would practice that way, but overall, no that is not how it works. Women are seen as equals, partners. Some of the more orthodox sects have very distinct roles for men and women. Women are the homemakers and men the breadwinners, etc. But women aren't seen as lessor because if it, rather it is an honored and valued role.
As you move into the more orthodox branches you will definitely find inequalities among the men and women, but the inequalities sort of go both ways. There are certain things only men are allowed - for instance for many many years only a well studied man over the age of 40 was allowed to study Khabbalah, but this is no longer the case in many branches. Likewise, in very orthodox temples there are separate places of worship for men and women - but again this is not viewed among those who practice it as in inequality but more as a way to eliminate distractions from your worship.
Then, there are things that are given entirely to the women. Certain ritual practices are to be performed only by the women or may only be performed by a male if there is no woman present. The sexual relationship between a man and a wife is viewed largely as the woman's domain. She is not told she must make love with her husband, rather it is the husband who is told it is his duty to honor his wife in that manner.
So, no, the wife is not submissive, but among the more orthodox there definitely are some distinctive roles for men and women.
I was reading something the other day that talked about how Eve is called the mother of all living but Adam is not referred to as the father. It also talked about the women behind the patriarchs. How the men got most of the glory, but if you read the text without the Christian mind set you will realize not one of those men would have earned their fame without the wives who stood by their side.
Thanks Abigail. That is very interesting. It does seem like the verses used for the obey and submit to the husband doctrine are all in the epistles.
Distinctive roles, but equal in value is not something I have a problem with... it is practical. When I think about women like my grandmothers, who lived on farms in remote areas, both had 4 kids before they were age twenty one, no nannies or servants...when you think about the sheer time it took to nurse, diaper, launder, feed, teach...it would be hard to even get out of the door!
Even when my children were small, I was a nursing mom, and child care--if I wanted to work--would have been my whole salary. So I stayed home and took care of business. I never felt weird about it until Way Corps started insisting I ask my husband if I could babysit etc.( Husband was like, Huh? I have to decide this? Didn't I marry a grown up?)
It would also be hard to live the weird submissive way of TWI of the 90s or some other groups, where all decisions are taken to the husband etc. I would think that is a product of our modern times and affluence--a hundred years ago those farmers would be up before dawn, working until late...no time to check a 15 min schedule.
It would also be hard to live the weird submissive way of TWI of the 90s or some other groups, where all decisions are taken to the husband etc. I would think that is a product of our modern times and affluence--a hundred years ago those farmers would be up before dawn, working until late...no time to check a 15 min schedule.
Way good "amok"!
I think also the idea of allowing others to raise your children is a product of the times. There have always been those that required nannies, like royalty and the very affluent. But for average folks to engage a nanny or daycare was at one time an unheard of practice.
I was reading something the other day that talked about how Eve is called the mother of all living but Adam is not referred to as the father. It also talked about the women behind the patriarchs. How the men got most of the glory, but if you read the text without the Christian mind set you will realize not one of those men would have earned their fame without the wives who stood by their side.
As I recall Eve means "mother of nations" or something like that and Adam merely means "man".
I remember a really bizarre teaching I heard in TWI about women and the Church. It was in the mid to late 90s, and I can't remeber who taught it, except it was a high mucka muck, not in the fellowship. Maybe LCM on some delusional rant.
Anyway, homosexuality was rampant in the early days of the Church(so the story went) in Rome. Women wanted to have sex with their husbands and have babies, but the husbands were all busy doing other men. They got tired of hearing the women and having the women try to run things, so there was a back lash against women...sex with women became 'dirty'...
I kid you not I heard this taught. I remember at the time thinking--homosexuality must be like a virus...
I remember a really bizarre teaching I heard in TWI about women and the Church. It was in the mid to late 90s, and I can't remeber who taught it, except it was a high mucka muck, not in the fellowship. Maybe LCM on some delusional rant.
Anyway, homosexuality was rampant in the early days of the Church(so the story went) in Rome. Women wanted to have sex with their husbands and have babies, but the husbands were all busy doing other men. They got tired of hearing the women and having the women try to run things, so there was a back lash against women...sex with women became 'dirty'...
I kid you not I heard this taught. I remember at the time thinking--homosexuality must be like a virus...
Wow that is bizarre! I often wondered how TWI managed to finally screw up the truth of Romans 1. Now I know. Thanks Bramble. :)
I finally got back into this book now that I have a summer break from textbooks.
Just finished reading chapter 2 about Lot and his family. Somehow I thought that Lot also turned to stone/salt as well as his wife and I never understood how/why/what, etc.
And as the book tells of his daughters getting him wasted and laying with him to conceive sons to carry on the family........of course we never discussed that in that other place before.
Fascinating book!
I'm diggin' how the author writes with providing information and even somehow sticks in some humor now and then. Simple and profound.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
42
13
47
5
Popular Days
Apr 12
19
Apr 11
13
May 27
12
Apr 13
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 42 posts
Bramble 13 posts
Eyesopen 47 posts
JavaJane 5 posts
Popular Days
Apr 12 2007
19 posts
Apr 11 2007
13 posts
May 27 2007
12 posts
Apr 13 2007
11 posts
Eyesopen
I dont think that Eve was placed "under" Adam so much as Adam was given the responsibility of Eve. Remember he is the one that denied any copability in the whole "apple" affair, and blamed it all on Eve. So then in the "fall" Adam was given a huge majority of the responsibility of his wife. If I remember correctly without going back some pages to find it, man was charged with the protection of the woman and if he died his sons were responsible for her. So it wasn't so much that woman was made lower than man but she was removed from the equation so man could not blame her for his own actions any more. That of course backfired because today Eve is blamed for the entire fall of man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
Good point, Eyes!
As for the OT being viewed as history rather than the will of God in action - this makes a lot of sense to me... We can learn a lot from the history, but without the understanding of the culture of the time it just doesn't make a lot of sense...
Things like that are all over the place in our own history books. Without the understanding of social interactions and customs of the times, the reasons of wars, political upheavals, etc, don't make any sense, even a couple of hundred years ago. Or even looking at current events such as what is happening in foreign countries.
Just because culture dicates something doesn't mean it is right or wrong, or even God's will. There are some groups that believe it is God's will to kill their daughters in "honor killings" because they were kidnapped and possibly raped. They are not viewed as victims, but as bringing disgrace upon their families. You may not even be able to document this tradition in this culture's own holy books, but it still happens and is still viewed as God's will.
So many things are blamed/credited to God who probably had absolutely nothing to do with it. I think many of these records in the OT reflect this.
Someone in twi once said to me that the culture of the time was based on God's will, and by studying the "orientalisms" involved we could uncover the truth behind the culture... Makes it sound like we should all be living as they did in the OT then, doesn't it? I don't ascribe to this view. I think by understanding the culture we can better understand some of the records - but if the actions of the people mentioned in the history - if they are "good" or "evil" or just plain stupid - has to be judged on their own merits.
Was it accepted by culture in the OT to have multiple wives as king? yes. Was it accepted according to the law given by God? No. Deu 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. (in reference to the king.)
Obviously there were some who obeyed culture and not the Laws set out by God. (David, Solomon, to name a couple.) Just because these were "Men of God" doesn't mean that what they did was right in the sight of God.
We had the same problem in twi - we (ok, at least I) thought that everything the "MOG" did had to be right, even if it didn't make sense or line up with the what the Bible said...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Wow! I couldn't have said it better myself, hmmm...I didn't...but you did. Excellent post! Do you mind if I copy it for future reference? It's not like it would be the first one of your posts that I have copied. Hehe Between you and Abi and several others my file cabinet runneth over!
But that's a good thing.
So if we are going to act upon the premise that the OT is mostly history and that not everything in reflects God's will then where does the question of the Bible denegrading women fit in?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
Take what you want! I'm giving it out for free!!
As for the question of the Bible denegrading women... I think most of the denegrading can be tied into the culture of the time and not the specifically the commandments given to them by God. Since the Bible was edited by MALES and MEN were the ones who put together the final canon, I think we can be assured that at least SOME of their male-dominated society viewpoints crept in to what was seleceted and what wasn't...
I would love to spend some time reading some of the other books that were rejected from the final cut - it would be interesting what was considered as holy writings prior to that editing process.
Was it the Counsel of Nicea where that canon was set? I can't remember... but that specific Counsel, if not all of them had a definite political agenda as well as a spiritual one!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I think that is quite right the men made the rules and organized the Bible so the oppressive culture probably did slip into the translations of the Bible.
It was the Council of Nicaea that the books were voted on. I am looking for the link that states the Canons that came out of it. But here is a link to the Council of Elvira where the Church decided on all sorts of ways to degrade, segregate and made different rules and punishments for women.
http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20...lviraCanons.htm
I posted some other links back on page 3 I think that will take you to a website that would link you to the Gospel of Mary. I will try and find the others.
Here's the First Council of Nicaea page.
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum01.htm
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
In Gen ch 3 God tells them that her husband will rule her. Sounds like she lost any autonomy she had at that point. But I certainly can see men/teachers doctoring their creation story to fit their cultural beliefs and ways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
You are correct in that is what God told EVE. But was it intended for all women or just her? Some would say it was never meant to have been for all women. In Judaism it is said it was Eve's punishment and it was passed down. Then throughout Genesis various women began the process of undoing that "punishment". Abraham was told to listen to Sarah. Rebecca knew who the true heir was supposed to be, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I think it would be more just that the punishement was Eve's not all womens.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
And I guess the final overcoming of the "punishment" would logically follow in Genesis 3:15 regarding the seed of the woman crushing the head of the serpent...
Interesting...
Amok! Amok!
*edited to add Amoks because they are fun!
Edited by JavaJaneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Also interesting is that the serpent was associated with goddess beliefs, with renewel, healing and rebirth in the ancient world. Also eternity, symbolized by the snake forming a circle with its tail.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Alright here's my amok for the day...part of the punishment must have been passed down from Eve to othe women because women still have pain while giving birth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Well I figured I'd go back to the research for a few.
Rashi says the section in Genesis 3 regarding the woman's desire being to her husband and him ruling over her refers to the woman'sl desire for intimacy with her husband, but in intimacy the husband will "rule" because it is something that cannot be demanded. In other words, we desire intimacy, but we cannot demand it, the man must give it freely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
This might tie in with the whole "naked" and knew it not bit... Now they had things to hide from each other.
Interesting....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Abigail, a question for you because I'm curious.
Does Judaism view women in the role of submissive similar to some Christian doctrines? Are women to obey their husbands?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I think it is entirely possible there are some who would practice that way, but overall, no that is not how it works. Women are seen as equals, partners. Some of the more orthodox sects have very distinct roles for men and women. Women are the homemakers and men the breadwinners, etc. But women aren't seen as lessor because if it, rather it is an honored and valued role.
As you move into the more orthodox branches you will definitely find inequalities among the men and women, but the inequalities sort of go both ways. There are certain things only men are allowed - for instance for many many years only a well studied man over the age of 40 was allowed to study Khabbalah, but this is no longer the case in many branches. Likewise, in very orthodox temples there are separate places of worship for men and women - but again this is not viewed among those who practice it as in inequality but more as a way to eliminate distractions from your worship.
Then, there are things that are given entirely to the women. Certain ritual practices are to be performed only by the women or may only be performed by a male if there is no woman present. The sexual relationship between a man and a wife is viewed largely as the woman's domain. She is not told she must make love with her husband, rather it is the husband who is told it is his duty to honor his wife in that manner.
So, no, the wife is not submissive, but among the more orthodox there definitely are some distinctive roles for men and women.
I was reading something the other day that talked about how Eve is called the mother of all living but Adam is not referred to as the father. It also talked about the women behind the patriarchs. How the men got most of the glory, but if you read the text without the Christian mind set you will realize not one of those men would have earned their fame without the wives who stood by their side.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Thanks Abigail. That is very interesting. It does seem like the verses used for the obey and submit to the husband doctrine are all in the epistles.
Distinctive roles, but equal in value is not something I have a problem with... it is practical. When I think about women like my grandmothers, who lived on farms in remote areas, both had 4 kids before they were age twenty one, no nannies or servants...when you think about the sheer time it took to nurse, diaper, launder, feed, teach...it would be hard to even get out of the door!
Even when my children were small, I was a nursing mom, and child care--if I wanted to work--would have been my whole salary. So I stayed home and took care of business. I never felt weird about it until Way Corps started insisting I ask my husband if I could babysit etc.( Husband was like, Huh? I have to decide this? Didn't I marry a grown up?)
It would also be hard to live the weird submissive way of TWI of the 90s or some other groups, where all decisions are taken to the husband etc. I would think that is a product of our modern times and affluence--a hundred years ago those farmers would be up before dawn, working until late...no time to check a 15 min schedule.
Just some rambling thoughts, and probably amok!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Way good "amok"!
I think also the idea of allowing others to raise your children is a product of the times. There have always been those that required nannies, like royalty and the very affluent. But for average folks to engage a nanny or daycare was at one time an unheard of practice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
As I recall Eve means "mother of nations" or something like that and Adam merely means "man".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I remember a really bizarre teaching I heard in TWI about women and the Church. It was in the mid to late 90s, and I can't remeber who taught it, except it was a high mucka muck, not in the fellowship. Maybe LCM on some delusional rant.
Anyway, homosexuality was rampant in the early days of the Church(so the story went) in Rome. Women wanted to have sex with their husbands and have babies, but the husbands were all busy doing other men. They got tired of hearing the women and having the women try to run things, so there was a back lash against women...sex with women became 'dirty'...
I kid you not I heard this taught. I remember at the time thinking--homosexuality must be like a virus...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Wow that is bizarre! I often wondered how TWI managed to finally screw up the truth of Romans 1. Now I know. Thanks Bramble. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
I finally got back into this book now that I have a summer break from textbooks.
Just finished reading chapter 2 about Lot and his family. Somehow I thought that Lot also turned to stone/salt as well as his wife and I never understood how/why/what, etc.
And as the book tells of his daughters getting him wasted and laying with him to conceive sons to carry on the family........of course we never discussed that in that other place before.
Fascinating book!
I'm diggin' how the author writes with providing information and even somehow sticks in some humor now and then. Simple and profound.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I'm really glad you are enjoying it, Shellon!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.