Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical contradictions.
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 329 (9376)
05-08-2002 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Percy
05-07-2002 4:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Schraf asks:

How do you recognize the original or "correct" word of God, and how do you recognize a translational error that has changed meaning, or not changed meaning?
Jet replies:

Through painstaking and persistant study, research, and prayer, coupled with faith in God and guidance by the Holy Spirit.
This is just a way to approach any difficult question, not an answer. Do you have a method or any criteria?
--Percy
***I think your are punching the air here. I fully described my "method" and "criteria" in my post. What part did you not understand?***Jet
Shalom
[Edited to remove spurious UBB codes. --Percy]
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 05-07-2002 4:43 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by nator, posted 05-08-2002 3:04 PM Jet has replied
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 05-08-2002 4:33 PM Jet has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 108 of 329 (9379)
05-08-2002 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Jet
05-08-2002 2:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
***I think your are punching the air here. I fully described my "method" and "criteria" in my post. What part did you not understand?***Jet
Shalom

The part we don't understand is that, say, two people can believe they are guided by faith and God, spend their lives painstakingly studying and researching, etc., and come up with different interpretaions of the same material.
How do we decide who is correct? The interpretation which is most like our own could be correct, or not. The one most like most other people's interpretation might be correct, might not. The one which is most different from all others might be correct, or it might not be.
Are you saying that we just have to figure out which one feels best?
In that case, who's to say any of them are correct?
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Jet, posted 05-08-2002 2:54 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Jet, posted 05-08-2002 3:32 PM nator has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 329 (9381)
05-08-2002 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Mister Pamboli
05-07-2002 4:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
***I personally use several translations in my studies. If I had to state a preference, it would be a toss-up between Rotherhams' Literal Emphasised Translation and the Messianic Authorized Version.***
Cool - are people still using Rotherham's? I never saw the point of it as a translation myself except as a crib when studying Hebrew. It's English seemed to be so stilted as to be virtually unreadable on its own and often gave the wrong impression. It reminded me of my friend who lectured at the Scots College in Rome and who insisted on using Scottish idioms literally translated into Italian - "this takes the biscuit" would become "cio prende il biscotto" which confused people no end and many thought he was just tirare il loro piedino.
The Messianic Authorized Version is new(ish) to me - is this the one published by the Messianic Bible Society? As I remember they are quite into Gematria. Does their translation / edition actually point out the (alleged) Torah codes in some way or does it just do some name replacement - YHWH Mashiach etc?

***You are correct that the Rotherhams' takes a little getting used to if one has grown comfortable with the modern day English translations. However, it is not as difficult to master its' style as is the 1611 KJV which is appears a bit more archaic to the average reader. As far as your inquiry about the MAV, the version I use makes no attempt to deal with Gematria and the alleged Torah codes, which although I have read about, I have as yet made no attempt, (with good reason), to either investigate, corroborate, or negate.***Jet
Shalom

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-07-2002 4:56 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 329 (9383)
05-08-2002 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by nator
05-08-2002 3:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
The part we don't understand is that, say, two people can believe they are guided by faith and God, spend their lives painstakingly studying and researching, etc., and come up with different interpretaions of the same material.
How do we decide who is correct? The interpretation which is most like our own could be correct, or not. The one most like most other people's interpretation might be correct, might not. The one which is most different from all others might be correct, or it might not be.
Are you saying that we just have to figure out which one feels best?
In that case, who's to say any of them are correct?

***I am not sure that I can answer your inquires to your, or to anyone elses satisfaction, although I fully understand your point of view. Many ask similar questions. Should I use the KJV, or the NIV, or the RSV, or the MET, etc., etc., etc.
Should we follow the Holy Father and thereby follow Rome? Should we follow Kenneth Copeland so that we are better enabled to learn the technique of making withdrawls from our Heavenly bank account? Or maybe we should follow Armstrong, or Smith, or Hagan, or Schuller, or Hammond, or Batchelor, or Murray, or.......I think you can see where this is headed.
Personally, by faith, I follow my heart, and I follow what I perceive to be the promptings of the Holy Spirit in dealing with all the ramifications of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. In whatever areas, in whatever practices, in whatever endeavors that I undertake, I rely on faith. Without faith, I am little more than an organic computer looking for someone to program me, and that is not something that I am willing to do.
The message of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is not a complicated one. Mankind often attempts to complicate it, but once you have removed the chaff mankind often mixes with it, the Gospel is simple and complete. God loves us more than we are able to comprehend and wants to have fellowship with us. Once we have accepted that on faith, the light is clear and bright and the complications disappear.***Jet
Shalom

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by nator, posted 05-08-2002 3:04 PM nator has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 111 of 329 (9387)
05-08-2002 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Jet
05-08-2002 2:54 PM


Jet writes:

I think your are punching the air here. I fully described my "method" and "criteria" in my post. What part did you not understand?
Hmmm. Not sure what you're missing here. You say you fully described your method and criteria in your post, but your post consisted of a single sentence which I quoted in my reply and here quote again:
Through painstaking and persistent study, research, and prayer, coupled with faith in God and guidance by the Holy Spirit.
How is this a description of the criteria and method you would use in deciding, for example, whether a manuscript contains the word of God?
I think it's fine if you follow your heart and the promptings of the Holy Spirit, but that's a personal and therefore subjective approach, and each individual will arrive at their own answers.
To be scholarly you must have a set of objective criteria and a method for applying them. If I understood your subsequent posts it sounds like you may believe a scholarly approach is doomed to find the wrong answers. But if you're determined to follow a spiritual path to answers, then how can Creationism be considered scientific?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Jet, posted 05-08-2002 2:54 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Jet, posted 05-08-2002 4:53 PM Percy has replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 329 (9388)
05-08-2002 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Percy
05-07-2002 4:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
So how old *is* the earth, and by what evidence do you arrive at your conclusion?
--Percy

***I would not venture a guess at just how old the earth really is but I accept the possibility at least, that it is quite possibly as old as science has suggested. As for evidence, what I consider the most substantive evidence, you most likely would not consider as evidence at all.......the Holy Word of God Almighty!
From my studies on the creation account in Genesis and elsewhere, and considering the language, terms, and phrases used, the earth had been in existance for perhaps millions of years before God created Adam. I do not put the same faith in, or reliance on, science that you most likely do. I accept the Word of God as the final authority, even when it contradicts the indications that science may supply, as science can lead us into error as well as proper conclusions.
It has been stated many times that science makes no attempt, or at least is not in the habit of, proving things, and that theories are based on the most logical conclusion that the evidence points to. Because science does not, or cannot, prove anything conclusively, reliance on it as the end all of true knowledge is not possible. Science is a wonderful tool when used correctly. It has to be. It was designed by God, as were all things good and noble. Mans' misuse of that design in no way can negate the purity of Gods' design.***Jet
Shalom

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 05-07-2002 4:36 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by RedVento, posted 05-09-2002 12:39 PM Jet has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 329 (9389)
05-08-2002 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Percy
05-08-2002 4:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Jet writes:

I think your are punching the air here. I fully described my "method" and "criteria" in my post. What part did you not understand?
Hmmm. Not sure what you're missing here. You say you fully described your method and criteria in your post, but your post consisted of a single sentence which I quoted in my reply and here quote again:
Through painstaking and persistent study, research, and prayer, coupled with faith in God and guidance by the Holy Spirit.
How is this a description of the criteria and method you would use in deciding, for example, whether a manuscript contains the word of God?
I think it's fine if you follow your heart and the promptings of the Holy Spirit, but that's a personal and therefore subjective approach, and each individual will arrive at their own answers.
To be scholarly you must have a set of objective criteria and a method for applying them. If I understood your subsequent posts it sounds like you may believe a scholarly approach is doomed to find the wrong answers. But if you're determined to follow a spiritual path to answers, then how can Creationism be considered scientific?
--Percy

***Saul was a scholar, extremely well educated, and well versed in the scriptures. And yet he did not recognize the arrival of the promised Messiah, but rather he relentlessly persecuted the bride of Christ, throwing some in prison and even assisting in the execution of others.***Jet
Shalom

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 05-08-2002 4:33 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 05-08-2002 5:10 PM Jet has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 114 of 329 (9392)
05-08-2002 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Jet
05-08-2002 4:53 PM


So while you await your own personal version of the revelation on the road to Damascus, how will you in the meantime decide whether a manuscript contains the word of God? When your revelation comes, how will you tell it from a non-revelatory thought? How will others, once you decide you've experienced a revelation, know the difference between someone who has had a revelation and someone who just thinks he has?
When you rely on revelation for your answers then all you get is a lot of different opinions, as currently embodied in all the sects and religions that exist today. Seekers of ultimate truth rely upon religion, but each religion, indeed each sect of each religion, has its own ultimate truth. Relying solely on spiritual inputs will never result in any concensus.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Jet, posted 05-08-2002 4:53 PM Jet has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by compmage, posted 05-09-2002 1:46 AM Percy has not replied

w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 115 of 329 (9415)
05-09-2002 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Philip
04-23-2002 11:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
Although there are numerous translation glitches that ‘suit’ one population over another, only one Biblical contradiction has stymied my ‘fundamentalist’ attempt to render the Bible inerrant in every last detail. Doubtless there are others apparent, but I believe I’ve reconciled them all, including the Genesis discrepancies and the so called Calvanistic-Arminian discrepancies (i.e., God’s Sovereignty vs Free Will). But note this apparent discrepancy:
2 Kings 24.8 states: Jehoiachinb was EIGHTEEN years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months.
Vs.
2 Chronicles 36.9 states: Jehoiachin was EIGHT years old when he began to reign and he reigned three months
Apologists have called this a transcriptional error.
(1) If, indeed, this is a transcriptional error, then a purely literal fundamentalist scheme of the KJV seems to fail (at least to a degree).
(2) If, on the other hand, I state that I believe the original manuscripts only were correct, then I concede God’s Word is at least partially obscured by errors.
(3) Jehoiachin tutored 10 years before really allowed to reign.
(4) Or, the words must become ‘surreal’ in their relations (as in the Poetic books) to impart a ‘higher’ meaning, e.g., Jehoiachin was ‘so young’, ‘premadonna-like’, ‘premature’, etc. before taken into captivity by Babylon.
(5) A devout Christian may add that the Gospel Word (i.e., the Christ dying for our sins and raising from the dead) must also be ‘symphonic’ with this scripture to be valid. (an offshoot of no. 4 above)
Anyone care to comment additionally on this ‘apparent’ contradiction?
The answer is found in Ezekiel 19:5-6. There we read,
quote:
Now when she saw that she had waited, and her hope was lost, then she took another of her whelps, and made him a young lion. And he went up and down among the lions, he became a young lion, and learned to catch the prey, and devoured men. (Ezekiel 19:5-6)
In speaking of Jehoiachin, this passage states that he was first made a young lion and later became a young lion. This would then lead one to interpret the supposed discrepancy between II Kings and II Chronicles as follows. Jehoiachin was made co-regent with his father at age eight. Ten years later his father died and he became the sole regent of Israel.
quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Let's see if we can pick our way through this, assuming KJV for the Bible.
The KJV of the Bible contains errors and contradictions.
The Word of God is without errors and contradictions.
Therefore, the KJV version of Bible is not the Word of God.
But the Word of God *is* contained within the original manuscripts.
Therefore, either the KJV was not translated from original manuscripts, or the translation is in error, or both.
Hmmm. So how do you know when you have a manuscript that contains God's original words? And how do you know when it's been interpreted and translated properly?
First of all, I agree with you that the Word of God is without error or contradiction. This is the primary test of all Scripture.
On the other hand, however, I would disagree with your claim that the KJV contains errors and contradictions. I have just recently completed a study of 279 pages worth of supposed errors, and in every case I found the Scriptures in question to be inerrant.
Thus, using your same logic, I would have to conclude that, the true Word of God containing no error and the KJV likewise containing no error, the KJV is an accurate translation of the true Word of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Philip, posted 04-23-2002 11:40 PM Philip has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 116 of 329 (9416)
05-09-2002 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Percy
05-08-2002 5:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Seekers of ultimate truth rely upon religion, but each religion, indeed each sect of each religion, has its own ultimate truth. Relying solely on spiritual inputs will never result in any concensus.

As far as I am concerned, this is one of the better arguments against the existence of god, or at least a god who is in any way interfering with our lives.
If he/she/it existed and was guiding us in some way then it would be clear to all what the correct path was. Given the number of religions and sects, this is obviously not the case.
There are a few other options but they entails acts on either my part or gods part that contradict the very nature of a supposed all powerful all loving god.
------------------
compmage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 05-08-2002 5:10 PM Percy has not replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 329 (9427)
05-09-2002 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Jet
05-08-2002 4:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:

Science is a wonderful tool when used correctly. It has to be. It was designed by God, as were all things good and noble. Mans' misuse of that design in no way can negate the purity of Gods' design.***Jet
Shalom

Just an observation.. If all God's creations are good and noble, then there is a problem with the concept of original sin. Man, as created by god, in his image, would be unable to disobey god, would not able to be tempted, unless god set us up from the start to fall. The first sin was not eating from the tree of knowledge it was disobeying god, that ability to disobey was inborn apparantly, and there when god created us. So either he a: screwed up, or b: made us fallible. I would say the normal answer to that would be he made us fallible. Which leads to another question. Why did he make us fallible? We are made in his image, according to a creationist we are literaly in his image(I say that to show a point, regardless of how you would like to pick and choose what is literal and what isn't you can't) therefore god is fallible also. If God is fallible(which is further supported by his need to send his Christ then his word cannot be taken at face value and the the entire bible is suspect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Jet, posted 05-08-2002 4:44 PM Jet has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Philip, posted 05-11-2002 10:19 PM RedVento has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 329 (9518)
05-11-2002 3:18 PM


Not being willing to put forth fruitless efforts at evangelizing those souls, (only a fool sows seeds among the thorns and expects to receive a bumper crop), whose main purpose in life seems to be to purposely disregard the Absolute Truth and Existance of God Almighty by using foolishness and flawed logic, I must state that it never ceases to amaze me how many excuses people come up with, (unbelieveably lame ones at that), to justify their not obeying God and believing His Word.
Just a few of the most familiar ones are......."If God was truly a righteous God, then He wouldn't have made us with the ability to sin.", or how about this one, "There are so many translations of the Bible that there is no way to tell if it is really the Word of God."
For the most part, the people who use these types of excuses have never attempted to get familiar with God. Oh, to be sure, some will claim that they have tried, or that they used to believe, but the reality is that they never gave God a fraction of the attention that they willingly give to scientists and their everchanging theories. I personally thank God that I am not burdened with sorrow for thoses who are willingly lost and prefer darkness rather than light.
Perhaps the reason I am not burdened is because I have heard so many lame excuses as to why someone either doesn't believe in God, or doesn't believe the Bible is the Word of God, or doesn't believe that God would bother Himself with the lives of men and women, and yet these same people not only willingly, but gladly receive the latest theory of some scientist that they have never even heard of, let alone having ever met and spoken with them.
Scripture tells us that some people just don't want anything to do with God because then they would have to acknowledge far too much and surrender much, much more. They don't like the idea of being held accountable for their actions, so they just refuse to obey, and then justify their disobedience by claiming that either God doesn't exist or that God does exist but the Bible is not His Holy Word.
I wonder how many of those who espouse the belief that the Bible is not the Word of God have put forth even half the effort to study the Bible and its' history as they put forth claiming with an unflattering certainty that evolution is absolutely true. They are willing to believe what some scientists write, even though they are often times proved wrong by even more scientists, who are in turn proved wrong by even more scientists, but these same individuals are forever unwilling to accept that the Bible could be the Holy Word of God because of all the different translations, even though they have never studied Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, (which, admittedly, is not an easy task), nor have they researched the thousands of ancient copies of scripture to see if one translation or another it more suitable for study.
It is just much easier for them to deny God, deny His Holy Word, and deny the sacrifice made on their behalf. I thank God daily that He has not burdened my heart for those lost souls who are quite happy to remain in their willingly ignorant state of denial. I also thank God daily that He has burdened my heart to declare the Gospel of the Kingdom of God for those that hunger and thirst after righteousness. It is those who seek life who are my burden, and I gladly bear that burden, for it is light and easy to carry. No one in their right mind would want to drag a corpse around with them. I am perfectly willing to let the dead bury the dead.
Jet
Shalom
**********************************************************************
"If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough and often enough the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler-Darwinian Evolutionist
"If I can send the flower of the German nation into the hell of war without the smallest pity for the spilling of precious German blood, then surely I have the right to remove millions of an inferior race that breeds like vermin." Adolf Hitler-Darwinian Evolutionist
**********************************************************************

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Percy, posted 05-11-2002 4:39 PM Jet has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 119 of 329 (9523)
05-11-2002 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Jet
05-11-2002 3:18 PM


Nice sermon, but I still have all the same questions. How do you know what God is telling you? How can you tell the difference between your own thoughts and a revelation from God? How do you properly interpret God's word in the Bible so as to eliminate error and bias?
Jet writes:

"If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough and often enough the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler-Darwinian Evolutionist
"If I can send the flower of the German nation into the hell of war without the smallest pity for the spilling of precious German blood, then surely I have the right to remove millions of an inferior race that breeds like vermin." Adolf Hitler-Darwinian Evolutionist

So it's your view that when an evil person accepts a particular theory that that theory becomes discredited? Wasn't Timothy McVeigh a Creationist?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Jet, posted 05-11-2002 3:18 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Jet, posted 05-13-2002 2:25 PM Percy has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 120 of 329 (9534)
05-11-2002 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by RedVento
05-09-2002 12:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
Why did he make us fallible? We are made in his image, according to a creationist we are literaly in his image(I say that to show a point, regardless of how you would like to pick and choose what is literal and what isn't you can't) therefore god is fallible also.

--See my Hypothesis #1 under the post: "Only Christian ID makes logical sense?"
--"Redeeming" observations of (fallible) man.
Note: Eve was deceived, Adam deliberately sinned, this was a 'redeeming' act (as per the New Testament model)
Satan is another fallible creature who biblically will suffer a hell that was prepared for the devil and his angels; how cruel, right? But just and befitting the infinite torment he willfully has inflicted upon others.
Can not one be in the image of God and still be fallible. I.e., with 'freedom' of expression?
Refuse to see the 'redeeming' observations around us and you're willfully blind. Such refusal denies scientific and ethical observations, making a double lie.
If God is fallible(which is further supported by his need to send his Christ then his word cannot be taken at face value and the the entire bible is suspect.
[/QUOTE]
--The entire Bible is only suspect if the Christ-crucified-risen-from-the-dead nature of ID is absent. That would leave you with the ‘un-redeeming’ law of Moses, which only damns us all as guilty sinners.
--‘Redeeming’ observations are better than ‘Perfect noble’ ones, for they atone for the evil while producing a greater good a more excellent design overall.
--A brief summary of Hypothesis #1 under my post: "Only Christian ID makes logical sense?:
There are indeed infinitudes of ubiquitous ‘cursed’ and ‘redeeming’ qualities found throughout the creation, from bacterial resistance and advances in molecular biology to ‘cruel and cursed' cosmic darkness’ and ‘redeeming’ light rays’.
Numerous ubiquitous observations in nature obviously portray the nature of the ID to be a Christ-crucified-risen-from-the-dead scheme. This ID model is exceedingly blatant and cannot be ruled out scientifically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by RedVento, posted 05-09-2002 12:39 PM RedVento has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 329 (9578)
05-13-2002 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Percy
05-11-2002 4:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Nice sermon, but I still have all the same questions. How do you know what God is telling you? How can you tell the difference between your own thoughts and a revelation from God? How do you properly interpret God's word in the Bible so as to eliminate error and bias?
Jet writes:

"If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough and often enough the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler-Darwinian Evolutionist
"If I can send the flower of the German nation into the hell of war without the smallest pity for the spilling of precious German blood, then surely I have the right to remove millions of an inferior race that breeds like vermin." Adolf Hitler-Darwinian Evolutionist

So it's your view that when an evil person accepts a particular theory that that theory becomes discredited? Wasn't Timothy McVeigh a Creationist?
--Percy

***As to the first part of your post, I suggest you try reading the Bible and praying to God for understanding and enlightenment, doing so on a daily basis, and continue to do so for a period of one year. I am convinced that all of the questions you posed will be answered. After all, what is one single year when compared to eternity. If after that short period of time you still deny the validity of the Word of Almighty God, I may have a few questions for you.
As to the second part of your post, concerning a discredited theory, my reply is no. A theory is not discredited due to its' acceptance by an evil person. On that same note, neither is it validated due to its' acceptance by an otherwise brilliant scientist.***Jet
Shalom
"If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough and often enough the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler.......Darwinian Evolutionist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Percy, posted 05-11-2002 4:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Percy, posted 05-13-2002 2:41 PM Jet has replied
 Message 284 by Erebus, posted 10-17-2002 4:20 AM Jet has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024