Re: Global flood? Oh Gene. . .!
- David, you wrote:
> You seem to say that a soundI'm not standing on my head! Wasn't it a question I gave? David,
> hermeneutical approach to the text
> indicates there was NOT a recent
> global flood.
> You have to stand on your head to
> say that.
> An atheist would eat you alive.
surely you are aware that many religious minded folks think they have a
sound hermeneutical principle and they don't conclude with a recent,
global flood interpretation of the text.
Farrell Till didn't "eat me alive". As a matter of fact, he backed out
of the debate we were supposed to have on the existence of God. :o)
David Willis, you wrote:
> If the apparent historical account ofWell, I don't know if Todd will take that up. I suggest you also ask
> a worldwide global flood in recent
> times is not intended by God to be
> received by us as actual history then
> you have to think God is a heinous
> THAT makes a better case for "God
> must be a deceiver" than any argument
> you make against apparent age.
>Right Atheist Todd?
the question of Gene Lipscomb.
Gene, do you care to respond to David's question/observation?