Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
37 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 33 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,607 Year: 16,643/19,786 Month: 768/2,598 Week: 14/251 Day: 14/23 Hour: 5/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Yaro's 'Logical fallacies' discussion...
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 44 (55322)
09-13-2003 11:16 PM


Hello to all:

Yaro had said: "This one isn't about disproving evoloution. Heck, throw it out, it don't exist for these purposes. I simply want a socratic method aproach to discussing issues in the bible.

Certainly if we can engage someone in a point by point dialogue, the truth should come to light."

BTW, I hope I'm not being improper by starting a new thread. It's just that my position is so radically different from what I perceive Yaro's to be that I though a new platform was called for.

My position is this : I am a fundamentalist Christian YEC and I hold to the AKJV 1611 Bible. I certainly have unanswered questions regarding the Bible, but I don't believe that this constitutes 'discrepancies' in my Bible - not a one!

From years of study, I know about the (alleged) "errors and contradictions" and now Yaro, Brian, et al. speak of the "affronts to common sense" that many people see in the Bible.

I must repeat, I have NOT been able to answer every question that I've either discovered for myself or that has been brought to my attention. This point being clearly stated, there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the issue of alleged discrepancies in the Bible is just about always due to one of two reasons :

1. It is a manifestation of ignorance regarding how to read and interpret the Bible or, worse yet, simply not having read enough of the Bible at all.

2. It's a 'front'... a 'ruse'... a 'reasonably-appearing, socially-acceptable justification' for not submitting to the Word of God and to God Himself. After all, who'd be 'dumb' enough to submit to a Book that was "filled with all manner of errors", right?

When this issue (alleged Bible discrepancies) became serious enough in my life, I conducted a very thorough, in-depth study on the matter (this was many years ago). The conclusion of these studies was as I've stated above.

Maybe you've heard of 100 Bible "discrepancies" ... maybe 500 ... maybe even 2,000 of them. It may interest you to know that my studies have revealed that - depending on who you listen to - almost every verse in the AKJV 1611 Bible - over 31,000 verses - is "wrong" in some way. I realized then that there was far more to this subject than meets the eye - and there is.

If you're really interested and open-minded about this subject, I'd be happy to chat about it with you for a bit. OTOH, if what you want is to justify your immovable conclusion that "the Bible is wrong" then I'll leave this subject alone after this post.

In any event, I can assure you that I (and others like me) do NOT have to compromise my (our) intellectual integrity one iota in order to uphold the infallibility/inerrancy of the Bible. You are free, of course, to believe otherwise.

Joralex


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Yaro, posted 09-14-2003 12:38 AM Joralex has responded
 Message 3 by sidelined, posted 09-14-2003 3:40 PM Joralex has responded

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 2 of 44 (55333)
09-14-2003 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Joralex
09-13-2003 11:16 PM


Id like to adress the two reasons you proposed were behind the percived errors:

1. It is a manifestation of ignorance regarding how to read and interpret the Bible or, worse yet, simply not having read enough of the Bible at all.

I have read the bible in it's entirety twice in my life. Yet the greatest issue I find with it is the one you bring up here. Interpretation.

How are we to interpret this book, if not by what the words say?

So, if we see a logical contradiction, something that simply makes no sense. Like the 2 creation stories having things made on diffrent days for example, then how am I to interpret it?

Now, apologetics come in to play and you try to resolve the conflict. But to do this, requires you reinterpreting the passage in a different way, and in an arbitrary maner.

They say, well the first story is a summary, the second story is detail. So, logicaly you say, how come things are made on different days? Well, God made the idea that day, but not the object till the other day. and so on.

Now, some other christians, interpret the story as fully metaphorical. The days are billions of years, etc.

Others say it's a myth all together, never happend, but the Book is still valid and Christianity is real.

And none of these supposed interpretations can be said to be wrong. Because choosing to take something as a metaphore or literaly, is an arbitray choice exercised per taste by the apologist.

The big problem with interpretation in general, is: "Why didn't the auther just say so in the first place?"

See, the authors all thrughout the Bible are usualy saying what they mean, so why be cryptic in these instances? When there is a parable told, or a story related, the bible makes it clear that it is such. So why do these passages take so many mental acrobatics to gel in the mind?

The only logical way to aproach somthing like this is of course, to take it litteraly, and within historical context. Which obviously indicates that this is an old cultures creation myth, because it looks like one, reads like one etc. If it quacks like a duck...

2. It's a 'front'... a 'ruse'... a 'reasonably-appearing, socially-acceptable justification' for not submitting to the Word of God and to God Himself. After all, who'd be 'dumb' enough to submit to a Book that was "filled with all manner of errors", right?

Well, in my particular case anyway, it's not a front. Im simply not a beliver, and I find peoples belife in this particular myth interesting, because of exposure to it in my life.

Honestly, the Bible, and christianity just don't make sense to me. I really do see the Bible as an old book full of errors, and it is beyond me how people belive it so ardently.

When I read the Bible (twice) it allways struck me as a confusing mix of tall tales and philosphy, nothing intrinsicaly special spoke to me from it's pages. It read like other mythologies I have read.

Im not Justifying not submiting to a God, I simply don't see the God to submit to. See what I mean? He hasn't made himself real to me (neither physicaly or spirtualy), till then I see nothing to submit to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Joralex, posted 09-13-2003 11:16 PM Joralex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Joralex, posted 09-14-2003 3:41 PM Yaro has responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 44 (55381)
09-14-2003 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Joralex
09-13-2003 11:16 PM


Joralex May I be assured that in debate with you that I can be assured that you will be interested and open-minded on the subject of evolution?And while we're at it we will agree that you will not wish to consider the "bible is right" as an immovable conclusion? If so then I accept your invitation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Joralex, posted 09-13-2003 11:16 PM Joralex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Joralex, posted 09-14-2003 3:53 PM sidelined has responded

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 44 (55382)
09-14-2003 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Yaro
09-14-2003 12:38 AM


Id like to adress the two reasons you proposed were behind the percived errors:

---------------------------------------------------------
1. It is a manifestation of ignorance regarding how to read and interpret the Bible or, worse yet, simply not having read enough of the Bible at all.
---------------------------------------------------------

I have read the bible in it's entirety twice in my life. Yet the greatest issue I find with it is the one you bring up here. Interpretation.

How are we to interpret this book, if not by what the words say?

So, if we see a logical contradiction, something that simply makes no sense. Like the 2 creation stories having things made on diffrent days for example, then how am I to interpret it?

That's just it, Yaro, there are 'rules' and 'points' to keep in mind when reading the Bible so as to avoid seeing what isn't there as well as avoiding not seeing what is there.

Now, apologetics come in to play and you try to resolve the conflict. But to do this, requires you reinterpreting the passage in a different way, and in an arbitrary maner.

Neither I nor any other intellectually honest person would have been satisfied if, as you say, the solution required an "arbitrary" interpretation. In fact, the Bible itself warns us against "arbitrary interpretations". So, no, this isn't it, Yaro.

Now, some other christians, interpret the story as fully metaphorical. The days are billions of years, etc.

These people, IMHO, make various errors the two major ones being not taking the Bible in its entirety and having to introduce ad hoc hypotheses in order to retain consistency. But that's a totally different subject.

Others say it's a myth all together, never happend, but the Book is still valid and Christianity is real.

These people are completely mixed up regarding Christian theology.

And none of these supposed interpretations can be said to be wrong.

Yes, they are wrong. What often makes it hard to prove this is that people employ 'selective evidence'.

Because choosing to take something as a metaphore or literaly, is an arbitray choice exercised per taste by the apologist.

A key to discovering the truth in this is watching out for consistency without introducing ad hoc hypotheses.

The big problem with interpretation in general, is: "Why didn't the auther just say so in the first place?"

Anything written must be read and then interpreted - removing an interpretation isn't possible.

Also, there are times that God intentionally hides the meaning. He tells us this and He tells us why He does it.

See, the authors all thrughout the Bible are usualy saying what they mean, so why be cryptic in these instances? When there is a parable told, or a story related, the bible makes it clear that it is such. So why do these passages take so many mental acrobatics to gel in the mind?

This is one of those keys to keep in mind when reading Scripture : He has a purpose and that purpose may or may not be known to us. Why use parables and not plainer language? As you well stated, because He has a purpose.

The only logical way to aproach somthing like this is of course, to take it litteraly, and within historical context. Which obviously indicates that this is an old cultures creation myth, because it looks like one, reads like one etc. If it quacks like a duck...

It's not that simple.

--------------------------------------------------------
2. It's a 'front'... a 'ruse'... a 'reasonably-appearing, socially-acceptable justification' for not submitting to the Word of God and to God Himself. After all, who'd be 'dumb' enough to submit to a Book that was "filled with all manner of errors", right?
--------------------------------------------------------

Well, in my particular case anyway, it's not a front. Im simply not a beliver, and I find peoples belife in this particular myth interesting, because of exposure to it in my life.

Maybe... maybe not. I certainly wouldn't pretend to know what the case is but I do know with absolute certainty (because He says so in Scripture) that God knows the truth about you.

Honestly, the Bible, and christianity just don't make sense to me. I really do see the Bible as an old book full of errors, and it is beyond me how people belive it so ardently.

Fair enough. We that do know about God and of His Word say the same thing about the non-believer : it is beyond us how people cannot see the obvious. But then, there are the two answers that I stated above.

When I read the Bible (twice) it allways struck me as a confusing mix of tall tales and philosphy, nothing intrinsicaly special spoke to me from it's pages. It read like other mythologies I have read.

If you read it like a 'cheap novel', it'll read like a 'cheap novel'. Attitude has a lot do do with it. Your heart's condition - seeking with humility and reverence or seeking to refute with contempt - has a lot to do with it. Many things have to do with the Bible supplying more than just "words".

Im not Justifying not submiting to a God, I simply don't see the God to submit to. See what I mean? He hasn't made himself real to me (neither physicaly or spirtualy), till then I see nothing to submit to.

You choose not to, Yaro, it's that simple. There is more than sufficient evidence available to believe in the God of the Christian Bible, it's just a matter of seeking it earnestly and with humility.

Jorge


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Yaro, posted 09-14-2003 12:38 AM Yaro has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Yaro, posted 09-14-2003 4:17 PM Joralex has responded

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 44 (55384)
09-14-2003 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by sidelined
09-14-2003 3:40 PM


Sidelined said : "Joralex May I be assured that in debate with you that I can be assured that you will be interested and open-minded on the subject of evolution?And while we're at it we will agree that you will not wish to consider the "bible is right" as an immovable conclusion? If so then I accept your invitation."

Sidelined, you're comparing apples with cruise missiles in order to avoid the true issues.

Here's a simple analogy involving three mathematical statements:

1. "I am able to write the number 300,763 as the sum of two cubed integers
(i.e., 300,763 = X^3 + Y^3)."

2. "2 + 2 = 4"

3. "All even numbers greater than two may be written as the sum of two prime numbers."

Now, will you be as open-minded (i.e., willing to change your mind) on the truth of ANY of these three statements?

My guess is you will not be so inclined.

There's your answer.

Jorge

[This message has been edited by Joralex, 09-14-2003]

[This message has been edited by Joralex, 09-14-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by sidelined, posted 09-14-2003 3:40 PM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by sidelined, posted 09-14-2003 4:33 PM Joralex has responded

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 6 of 44 (55387)
09-14-2003 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Joralex
09-14-2003 3:41 PM


Ok Jorlax, Im willing to run the gamut on this if you are. Let's start.

That's just it, Yaro, there are 'rules' and 'points' to keep in mind when reading the Bible so as to avoid seeing what isn't there as well as avoiding not seeing what is there.

First off, may I ask you, to establish the rules and points of critical examination. What are our starting Axioms and common notions for interpretation.

Please outline them, so that we may both look at the bible from your point of view. What is the criteria for Interpretation.

These people, IMHO, make various errors the two major ones being not taking the Bible in its entirety and having to introduce ad hoc hypotheses in order to retain consistency. But that's a totally different subject.

Let's leave science out of this one, since Im sure both of us aren't scientists, and it will likely cloud the issue. As you said, we will look at it with the above stated "points" and "rules" in mind.

Once you outline these rules, we can look at the more controversial passages, that merit much interpretation to see if the rules hold up.

If you read it like a 'cheap novel', it'll read like a 'cheap novel'. Attitude has a lot do do with it. Your heart's condition - seeking with humility and reverence or seeking to refute with contempt - has a lot to do with it. Many things have to do with the Bible supplying more than just "words".

I don't agree with this, I like the Bible. There is alot of neat stuff in it, it just dosn't strike me as holy. Perhapse it's because I aproached it with no preconception about it's divinity, I just read it as is. Just didn't seem to be 100% real to me as all.

But again, lets establish the criteria.

I will anxiously await your reply.

[This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-14-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Joralex, posted 09-14-2003 3:41 PM Joralex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Joralex, posted 09-14-2003 9:51 PM Yaro has responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 44 (55393)
09-14-2003 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Joralex
09-14-2003 3:53 PM


Jorge I merely asked the inverse of the requirements that you asked of me. These are mirror images not opposites. You also make a poor arguement with the mathematics, since if you can show me, using rigorous logic that stands up to investigation then yes I would concede the truth of it.
We are not talking about mathematical statements are we now?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Joralex, posted 09-14-2003 3:53 PM Joralex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Joralex, posted 09-14-2003 9:04 PM sidelined has not yet responded

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 44 (55464)
09-14-2003 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by sidelined
09-14-2003 4:33 PM


"Jorge I merely asked the inverse of the requirements that you asked of me. These are mirror images not opposites. You also make a poor arguement with the mathematics, since if you can show me, using rigorous logic that stands up to investigation then yes I would concede the truth of it.

We are not talking about mathematical statements are we now?"

Absolutely not. I meant my example as a very loose analogy to illustrate the point that one is more able to changes one's mind on certain points than on others.

God is a far, far more complex issue than any mathematical statement (which are nothing more than tautological sentences within a formal language).

The point stands - the evidence for God is sufficient in an objective sense. The true issue is the acceptance of said evidence as supplying subjective and often times ill-defined criteria for 'sufficiency'.

Joralex


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by sidelined, posted 09-14-2003 4:33 PM sidelined has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2003 9:29 PM Joralex has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 44 (55465)
09-14-2003 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Joralex
09-14-2003 9:04 PM


The point stands - the evidence for God is sufficient in an objective sense.

Which God? What evidence? Your post doesn't make that clear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Joralex, posted 09-14-2003 9:04 PM Joralex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Joralex, posted 09-15-2003 9:56 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 44 (55467)
09-14-2003 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Yaro
09-14-2003 4:17 PM


Ok Jorlax, Im willing to run the gamut on this if you are. Let's start.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
That's just it, Yaro, there are 'rules' and 'points' to keep in mind when reading the Bible so as to avoid seeing what isn't there as well as avoiding not seeing what is there.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

First off, may I ask you, to establish the rules and points of critical examination. What are our starting Axioms and common notions for interpretation.

You want everything? I don't know if I have that for you - maybe no one does (?).

But I can give you a few just to get the ball rolling:

1. Context is very important.
2. Relatedness to other parts of Scripture must be considered.
3. Consistency within all of Scripture (OT & NT) must be maintained.
4. The times, places and names must be examined.
5. God employs His definitions, not ours.
6. God's purpose may not always be transparent or even revealed.
7. Depth of study is often essential to get to the heart of an apparent discrepancy.

These are just a few...

Please outline them, so that we may both look at the bible from your point of view. What is the criteria for Interpretation.

The very first rule is asking (by prayer) for guidance when reading His Word. Most people (and probably all non-believers) skip this step and this explains why many people read and aren't able to 'receive' anything.

Next, I've never gone wrong with the basic rule that the Bible is to be read and interpreted in its literal meaning UNLESS the context or some other implicit/explicit instructions tell me otherwise. Even with this rule it is sometimes difficult to extract meaning as illustrated by The Revelation.

------------------------------------------------------------------
These people, IMHO, make various errors the two major ones being not taking the Bible in its entirety and having to introduce ad hoc hypotheses in order to retain consistency. But that's a totally different subject.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's leave science out of this one, since Im sure both of us aren't scientists,

Bad assumption on your part but we'll leave science out anyway.

and it will likely cloud the issue. As you said, we will look at it with the above stated "points" and "rules" in mind.

Once you outline these rules, we can look at the more controversial passages, that merit much interpretation to see if the rules hold up.

Just as long as we don't get into 'legalistic technicalities', okay?

The Bible is many orders of magnitude more complex than a Shakespearean play and I challenge you to write inflexible "rules" for interpreting Shakespeare. Can't be done, can it?

Nonetheless, the rules I outlined above will hold up as long as we don't go 'crazy'.

------------------------------------------------------------------
If you read it like a 'cheap novel', it'll read like a 'cheap novel'. Attitude has a lot do do with it. Your heart's condition - seeking with humility and reverence or seeking to refute with contempt - has a lot to do with it. Many things have to do with the Bible supplying more than just "words".
------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't agree with this, I like the Bible. There is alot of neat stuff in it, it just dosn't strike me as holy. Perhapse it's because I aproached it with no preconception about it's divinity, I just read it as is. Just didn't seem to be 100% real to me as all.

Ah... I see now a source (maybe even 'the' source) of your problems. Let's carry on anyway and see how far this gets us.

But again, lets establish the criteria.

I will anxiously await your reply.

I've made a start into that above.

You should know that long ago I wrote a sort of 'paper' on alleged Bible contradictions (it was to answer an atheist that had challenged me on the subject). In this work I conducted an in-depth research on a few supposed 'discrepancies' in the Bible to illustrate how the correct interpretation remedies the situation in a perfectly Biblical and logical way.

If this is where you're heading then for the sake of time I suggest that you allow me to employ these examples. You did catch my meaning in the opening post on how many (alleged) Bible discrepancies there are said to be, right? Be assured, I am not going to enter into "answer me this one... okay, now answer me that one ... now this one... then that one... etc...".

If the essence of my message isn't understood after a few examples, then there's something else the matter and more examples aren't going to help. That has been my experience after doing this a long time.

We'll see what happens, Yaro. Hopefully, you'll 'get it'.

Joralex


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Yaro, posted 09-14-2003 4:17 PM Yaro has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Yaro, posted 09-14-2003 10:53 PM Joralex has responded

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 11 of 44 (55470)
09-14-2003 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Joralex
09-14-2003 9:51 PM


Hello Joralex,

I hope this will be a fun, and enlightening discusion for the both of us. Firts off, lest us review the rules layed out, and perhapse some additions or clarifactions.

"1. Context is very important."

I am assuming we mean the context of, the whole Bible, as most fundamentalists belive. Fair enugh, though I might add that this is dubious, considering the questions regarding the relatedness of the books at all.

Yet, this is about exploreing "the other sides" point of view So I accept this point.

"2. Relatedness to other parts of Scripture must be considered."

Agreed.

"3. Consistency within all of Scripture (OT & NT) must be maintained."

This is problamatic. Since we "must" maintain it, Im assuming when there is a descrepancy that takes a rather "far out" apologetic to remedy, we must accept the apologetic above the most obvious solution?

Im not sure if this will be benificial to either of our case, I mean, Ocam's razor does come in handy. But ok. We will go out of our way, to make things "gel".

"4. The times, places and names must be examined."

Im not sure what you mean by this one? I think you mean research into the locations, dates and such. is that the case?

"5. God employs His definitions, not ours."

This is also problamatic, less we have a source that explains God's definitions? I'm sure we should be able to infer HIS definition, from the Bible.

"6. God's purpose may not always be transparent or even revealed."

I think we all know this

"7. Depth of study is often essential to get to the heart of an apparent discrepancy."

Agreed, so outside sources, aside from the Bible are usable Im sure? If I may ask one question, why does it takes so much outside study to get a firm grasp on the Bible? Shoulden't anyone who reads it emidietly see the glory of God?

and, a prayr. I said one. I really did. We'll see if it works?

Anyway... on to the isues:

Since we have been up and down the creation myths, Noahs ark etc, lets try and tread some new ground in this one. And let us concentrate on only one descrepancy at a time (to avoid, answer me this, answer me that etc.), we will exaust one descrepancy.

I will propose my descrepancy in a bit (gotta find a good one ;), but, you may propose one.

Actually, I would prefer another user propose a discrepancy (not Noah, or genesis please), this way both I and Joralex will start with common ground. Any takers?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Joralex, posted 09-14-2003 9:51 PM Joralex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Asgara, posted 09-14-2003 11:26 PM Yaro has not yet responded
 Message 13 by sidelined, posted 09-14-2003 11:26 PM Yaro has responded
 Message 16 by Joralex, posted 09-15-2003 10:41 AM Yaro has not yet responded

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 556 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 12 of 44 (55472)
09-14-2003 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Yaro
09-14-2003 10:53 PM


I do have a proposed discrepency for you to debate but first I would suggest that this be moved to the Great Debate forum. With only Joralex and Yaro discussing the issue,it will make it much easier for others to follow.

Proposed discrepency - Jehoiachin (aka Jeconiah) son of Jehoiakim.
There are three discrepencies concerning this individual.

First is his age at succession. 2 Kings 24-8 giving his age as 18 and 2 Chron 36-9 giving his age as 8.

Second concerns two different and contradictory prophesies concerning Jeconiah in Jeremiah. Chapter 22 states that Jeconiah will never return to Jerusalem, yet in chapter 28 God is quoted as saying that within 2 years Jeconiah and all the Babylonian captives would be brought back.

Third discrepency concerning Jeconiah is his listing in the genealogy of Jesus in Matt 1 - In the curse ending in Jere 22-30, no desendents of Jeconiah were to sit on the Throne of David

I may have some of my facts wrong, but I do believe that all the issues concerning Jeconiah(Jehoiachin) deserve some looking into.

------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Yaro, posted 09-14-2003 10:53 PM Yaro has not yet responded

    
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 44 (55473)
09-14-2003 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Yaro
09-14-2003 10:53 PM


Yaro Ok I would propose Judges 1:19 "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain;but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley,because they had chariots of iron.
A God who created the universe in 7 days could not defeat iron chariots?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Yaro, posted 09-14-2003 10:53 PM Yaro has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Yaro, posted 09-15-2003 3:58 AM sidelined has not yet responded

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 14 of 44 (55484)
09-15-2003 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by sidelined
09-14-2003 11:26 PM


sorry I havent written back yet I will later on. I been up late workin, so Im gonna sleep long and well tonight. Later folks, if anyone cares all that much

P.s. Please, keep the sugestions comin.

[This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-15-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by sidelined, posted 09-14-2003 11:26 PM sidelined has not yet responded

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 44 (55505)
09-15-2003 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
09-14-2003 9:29 PM


"Which God? What evidence? Your post doesn't make that clear."

The God of the Christian Bible... the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The vast natural and logical evidence. Note : said evidence may be interpreted so as to support a Naturalistic position, since it is necessarily fragmented and partial.

Joralex


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2003 9:29 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019