Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Rapid Deposition -Evaporites???

Expand Messages
  • autismuk@aol.com
    In a message dated 01/02/01 05:54:52 GMT Standard Time, ... It s the only way inerrantist fundamentalists can deal with life. It s not deliberately insulting
    Message 1 of 20 , Feb 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 01/02/01 05:54:52 GMT Standard Time,
      susan-brassfield@... writes:

      > I point out that you can compare the standard periodic table of
      > elements with the elements that are observed in the solar system and
      > get a minimum age of the solar system of 80 million years. You delete
      > it without comment. I ask you to comment on it. You delete my request
      > without comment. I type the original passage from Miller's book
      > (which was considerably more detailed than my characterization of
      > it) and you delete *that* without comment. Meanwhile you keep posting
      > Bible verses.

      It's the only way inerrantist fundamentalists can deal with life. It's not
      "deliberately insulting" though I find this kind of approach far more
      "insulting" than just abuse.

      Almost the only way to exist with an inerrantist belief is to have a filter
      that filters out stuff you can't deal with. With this it is pretty trivial to
      convince yourself that all the evidence supports (your belief because you
      are effectively ignoring anything that doesn't).

      This is what the Bible verses are for. I suspect the internalised thinking
      goes something like : "Can't think of an answer : look in the Bible : here's
      something that explains it". For a fundamentalist it's not God/Jesus that
      are important in reality; it's the Bible.

      I think Tim actually believes posting bits of the Bible is an answer to
      a question. As a last resort you'll get quotes about obtuseness/blindness
      or the resurrection or something like that. The bottom line for Tim is that
      he is right, period. (generally, allowed to be wrong on a few minor specifics)
      If you can't see it, it *has* to be your fault.

      In my experience they are almost all like this ; even the highly educated
      ones. The Gish's of the world can go much further than Tim, that's all.
    • Chris Cogan
      Tim ... Chris There s still no evidence for this claim, and virtually no evidence that such a person even existed, so this is just an arbitrary assertion on
      Message 2 of 20 , Feb 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Tim
        > Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.

        Chris
        There's still no evidence for this claim, and virtually no evidence that
        such a person even existed, so this is just an arbitrary assertion on your
        part until you produce verifiable signed affidavits from some of your
        *alleged* eyewitnesses. Even then, this would be, at best, very *weak*
        evidence, under the circumstances.

        Tim
        > Those who disagree with me on the origins issue may well have been
        > changed by His life giving power.

        Chris
        Then again, they may well have changed for *other* reasons, such as the
        placebo effect, or because they *believed* that some psychological need was
        being satisfied. Further, I may as well point out that people's lives are
        changed by all sorts of things, and that, often, despite the claims of the
        person whose life is changed, the change is *not* necessarily for the
        better. I've seen quite a number of people whose lives have been "changed"
        by coming to believe in your God or some close variant of your God, and
        who, despite *their* claims, were obviously worse off for the change.

        Tim
        > But He says the Bible is more than
        > a book.

        Chris
        Where does He allegedly say that? In the Bible? Don't you realize that
        *anyone* can put words like "This book is more than a book," in a book? *I*
        could write a book supposedly written by God and put the words, "This book
        is more than a book" *in* the very same book? Would it be evidence that the
        book *was* in fact more than a book? No? Why not? Can you say, "circular
        reasoning"?
      • tc12358@hotmail.com
        ... [..I point out that the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians have written records that go back before that and someone else mentions that the Jerico excavations
        Message 3 of 20 , Feb 1, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          ---., Susan Cogan wrote:
          [..I point out that the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians have written
          records that go back before that and someone else mentions that the
          Jerico excavations date to about 10,000 years ago. You delete these
          observations without comment.]

          Seems to me Susan that Sumarian records older than either of your
          references go only back about 5000 years? One of us is wrong. The
          problem is that today history has been re-written to accomidate
          popular dogma. It's hard to get reputable dates. Evolutionary
          religion is pervasive. Yes, I know you quoted some Egyptian quotes
          earlier, but you are relying on someone else's dating scheme aren't
          you? I wonder if C14 was used to re-date these records, or what?
          But like you said yesterday, it is outside my field, and I don't have
          the time to study it out at present. If you are right, then I am
          wrong! :-)


          [..you can compare the standard periodic table of elements with the
          elements that are observed in the solar system and get a minimum age
          of the solar system of 80 million years]

          What your saying is that you can compare the table of elements with
          the elements and get an old age. Homey no play! Lack of elements
          with short half lives up to 80 million years could mean original
          compositions simply were what we see today, could mean mixing, or
          even an event that adjusted these rates in the past. Short term
          comets, spiral galaxies and dust in our solar system are all much
          more empiracal than your spectrographic interpretations, and indicate
          ages of much less than 80 million years.


          [..Meanwhile you keep posting > Bible verses.]

          Several reasons. One, I believe it is a valid eyewitenss journal of
          the past. Two, I believe is it inerrant and unchanged, which is both
          observeable and miraculous, and Three, I believe that if anything,
          God's words can do nothing but add to the discussion and lives of
          anyone who reads them, including both me and you. If God is going to
          save you or anyone, it will be from HIS words, not mine. So I quote.
          (Chris, no need to jump in and ask for science. I know your beliefs
          by now. I believe the Bible is valid in areas of science. You know
          that by now too.)


          [> ..These wet raindrop splashes are supposed to *fossilize* in this
          mess. You claim to be a scientist. You can verify your raindrop
          fossilization hypothesis with an experiment of your own.]

          I had read in a Natl. Geog. that Mary Leaky's human tracks were so
          clear because the volcanic ash was wet at the time, thus holding the
          tracks. Seems no one disputed that? But go ahead. Drop big enough
          drops of water into whatever substrate they were found in (sand etc),
          while it is wet, and pour some plaster of paris over it with any
          direction or force you like, and you will know in 30 minutes if this
          is plausable.


          [> Colossians 2:8 speaks of such, "Beware lest any man
          spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of
          men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
          .. Morris is the God you worship.]

          No, I worship Jesus Christ, who, for His own reasons gave this
          evolutionist real life, hope and open eyes to ALL the science. Thus
          I was left with lists of pros and cons. Before He quickened me, I
          only had one list, and the creaionists seemed like idiots. I
          actually mocked them. Morris is a very godly and meek man. I would
          be more godly and meek, even in the way I respond to you all.


          [.. I have a feeling it's because you can't find an answer in
          > the creationist books you learned science out of. It's not in any
          of those books because dogma is more important than truth.]

          Actually, just being in science for so many years allows me to answer
          most things without looking at the creationist stuff. I have read
          much more since being on this list. They usually have good science
          that at least is a viable alteritive, and that is all that is needed.



          [> and yet fossils are perfectly sorted in a way that makes them look
          > like they evolved and *not* stirred up and all jumbled together.
          You haven't been able to find an example of horseshoe crabs jumbled
          > together with trilobites in your creationist books.]


          As I have said before, perfect sorting would falsify my model. If I
          began to list anomalies, would anyone even blink as they wrote them
          off without even serious consideration? The formed metal balls in
          precambrian off South Africa will do fine. As for horseshoe crabs,
          were they living WITH trilobites? If so, we should eventually find
          fossils together. If not, we won't, and you can say they lived in
          different ages. But ecologic sorting today is by species ranges and
          not by time. Thus my question is not unreasonable.


          [> miracles are *fine*. Just don't call them SCIENCE. Science is a
          study > of the *natural* world.]

          Of course, the obvoius question is this, "If miracles actually MADE
          some or all of the observable world, are we being honest to deny the
          hand of God because we can't repeatably observe it?" Science is a
          limited window. God adjusts science. You are having science limit
          God. The Bible says to let God be true and evey man a liar.


          In Christ, Tim Clifton
          ........................
          John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the
          life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
        • Dave Oldridge
          ... From: To: Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 3:36 AM Subject: Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Re:
          Message 4 of 20 , Feb 1, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: <autismuk@...>
            To: <creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 3:36 AM
            Subject: Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Rapid Deposition -Chris


            > In a message dated 31/01/01 19:21:51 GMT Standard Time,
            tc12358@...
            > writes:
            >
            > > Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.
            > > Those who disagree with me on the origins issue may well have been
            > > changed by His life giving power. But He says the Bible is more than
            > > a book.
            >
            > Is this as honest as your claim that he says Adam was a literal man ?

            Tim has this black-white mentality with regard to the Bible. It makes it
            impossible for him to consider it as a collection or even to entertain the
            notion that it can be holy scripture without being scientifically
            infallible.
          • Chris Cogan
            ... Chris No, it isn t. The physicists working out how to do radiometric dating do not determine whether it works on the basis of their views on evolution. The
            Message 5 of 20 , Feb 1, 2001
            • 0 Attachment

              > ---., Susan Cogan  wrote:
              > [..I point out that the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians have written
              > records that go back before that and someone else mentions that the
              > Jerico excavations date to about 10,000 years ago. You delete these
              > observations without comment.]
              >
              > Tim
              > Seems to me Susan that Sumarian records older than either of your
              > references go only back about 5000 years?  One of us is
              wrong.  The
              > problem is that today history has been re-written to accomidate
              > popular dogma.  It's hard to get reputable dates. 
              Evolutionary
              > religion is pervasive. 

              Chris
              No, it isn't. The physicists working out how to do radiometric dating do not determine whether it works on the basis of their views on evolution. The scientists doing dating of Egyptian and Sumerian artifacts have no need whatever to refer to evolutionary theory to do their work. Christians who believe that the Earth was created *twenty* thousand years ago would certainly have no reason to bias their dating of ancient *Sumerian* artifacts.

              Your reliance on "evolution is a religion" as your universal means of simply *dismissing* evidence against your claims is dishonest. You cannot *rationally* try to explain their conclusions on the basis of such a hypothesis until you have shown that their arguments and/or evidential claims are unsound *in their own right*, *independently* of the beliefs of those who make the claims. Using the evolution-is-a-religion ploy is an attempt to refute the evidence and arguments on the basis of your evaluation of the person offering it. This is ad hominem, not rational argument. It is as if you rejected a claim of a proof of a mathematical theorem because you didn't like the religious views of the person himself instead of on the by showing that his theorem is either badly argued for or that it contradicts some more basic mathematical proposition.

              Using *your* methods, we could all simply dismiss *all* of your main claims on the grounds that you hold them because of your religious beliefs. It is *true* that you hold them because of your religious beliefs, but that doesn't *refute* them, and it doesn't, in itself, mean that your arguments are unsound (they are unsound for *other* reasons).

              This is why several of us, including at least three Christians, have repeatedly offered detailed analyses of your arguments and claims and their scientific status, and have offered empirical evidence that conflicts with your claims. Do you think we should start using *your* approach, and simply *dismiss* any claim you make that we don't agree with and that we might not have a real refutation of at hand? We *could*, you know. We could say,
              Don't believe anything Tim says. He's a religious crackpot. He is absolutely biased, and will simply re-write anything that doesn't fit his case. It's hard to get him to give reputable dates. His religion completely pervades his mind and prevents rational thought.

              If one of us were to say something like this, do you think the rest of us should therefore dismiss your claims as merely the street-corner harangues of a religious crank?

              Tim
              > Yes, I know you quoted some Egyptian quotes
              > earlier, but you are relying on someone else's dating scheme aren't
              > you? 

              Chris
              I don't know enough about the details here to argue the whole paragraph, but I *do* want to know just *whose* dating scheme *you* are using, and how *it* is validated scientifically. If you can't prove that your dating scheme is any better than anyone else's, why should we take it and the claims based on it seriously?

              Tim
              > I wonder if C14 was used to re-date these records, or what? 
              > But like you said yesterday, it is outside my field, and I don't
              have
              > the time to study it out at present. If you are right, then I am
              > wrong!  :-) 
              >
              > Susan
              > [..you can compare the standard periodic table of elements with the
              > elements that are observed in the solar system and get a minimum age
              > of the solar system of 80 million years]
              >
              Tim
              > What your saying is that you can compare the table of elements with
              > the elements and get an old age.  Homey no play!  Lack of
              elements
              > with short half lives up to 80 million years could mean original
              > compositions simply were what we see today,

              Chris
              *Extremely* unlikely. The processes that create these elements are the same ones, essentially, as those that create their *non-* radioactive isotopes. In many cases, there *do* exist certain amounts of the non-radioactive isotopes. Therefore, you can't merely dismiss such a finding with arbitrary, evidence-free alternatives. There *should* be certain amounts of the radioactive isotopes with shorter half-lives if the Universe and the Earth are even as young as, say, 85 *million* years, which is *still* over ten *thousand* times as old as you are claiming.

              Is this another one of those (increasingly numerous) points where you simply say, "God just *happened* to create a universe that, according to the *most* reliable methods we can devise, *appears* to be many *billions* of years old"?


              > could mean mixing, or
              > even an event that adjusted these rates in the past. 

              Chris
              Can't mean *mixing*; they are *missing* altogether, not *mixed* with other elements. They aren't *there* to mix.

              Further, "events" don't "adjust" such rates. They might change very slightly as the "density" of the "quantum foam" changes, or something like that, but that's about it.

              > Short term
              > comets, spiral galaxies and dust in our solar system are all much
              > more empiracal than your spectrographic interpretations, and
              indicate
              > ages of much less than 80 million years.

              Chris
              No, they don't.

              Susan
              > [..Meanwhile you keep posting > Bible verses.]
              >
              Tim
              > Several reasons.  One, I believe it is a valid eyewitenss
              journal of
              > the past. 

              Chris
              Without any good reason for thinking it to *be* a valid eyewitness journal of the past, I might add, and despite some good reasons to think it is *not* a valid eyewitness account (or an eyewitness account at all).

              Tim
              > Two, I believe is it inerrant and unchanged, which is both
              > observeable and miraculous,

              Chris
              It is certainly not inerrant (that's observable) and it is certainly *changed*. You read the KJV, which is, first, written in English, and second, demonstrably incorrect in translation in many places (and therefore changed from the original) -- and *this* is observable, too. Also, since it is *not* self-interpreting, and since ordinary Biblical interpretation depends largely on one's *personal*, subjective feelings about things, it has, for all practical purposes changed in much of the overall meaning as cultures and views of the world change.

              You really ought to pay more attention to the fact that it is not self-interpreting, that *much* of what you claim it says/means depends not on *it* but on your personal interpretation of it. You can, in short, claim that the *Bible* is inerrant *only* if you claim that *you* are inerrant as well. And we certainly have no strong evidence that *that* is true.

              Finally, if you mean that it is unchanged in some *other* respect, then there are ancient Egyptian and Chinese documents that are *also* unchanged, in a much stronger, and absolutely *literal* sense (that is, in some cases, we have the *originals*. We *don't* have the originals for the Bible, so you *cannot* rationally claim to know that it is unchanged. The original documents for the Bible might have been *radically* different, for all you know. So please quit spouting this total BS about the Bible being unchanged unless you can reference some *real* (i.e., *physical*) evidence of the absolutely original documents.

              Tim
              > and Three, I believe that if anything,
              > God's words can do nothing but add to the discussion and lives of
              > anyone who reads them, including both me and you. 

              Chris
              They *seem* to have turned *you* into a monomaniacal raving lunatic. How is that "adding to the discussion and lives of anyone who reads them"? Besides, literally *thousands* of books can do *that* (such as a good book on logical thinking, scientific method, rational philosophy, or even a good novel).

              Tim
              > If God is going to
              > save you or anyone, it will be from HIS words, not mine.  So I
              quote.
              > (Chris, no need to jump in and ask for science.  I know your
              beliefs
              > by now.  I believe the Bible is valid in areas of
              science.  You know
              > that by now too.)

              Chris
              I ask for science because that's what you keep *claiming* to have. More generally, I would ask for rational argument, rational validation of your claims. My main area of interest is philosophy, not science; but you keep pretending to have scientific justification for your claims. The best you have done so far is your recent remarks on the bristlecone trees, which are at least fact-*oriented*.

              Like some theists on this list, I don't believe that philosophical claims can generally be empirically validated. Nevertheless, when you claim that the Bible is evidence for the existence of a *divine* Jesus, the existence of God, the (very) recent creation of the Earth by God, and such, you are rampaging around in *philosophy*, in issues of metaphysics, epistemology, and the like. You are no longer doing *science*.

              Even if you changed your claims to be compatible with science, by saying that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago (but perhaps by non-God beings), that Jesus existed but was not necessarily divine (or part of or an aspect of or a branch of God), and so on, you'd still be wrong scientifically and epistemologically, but at least your claims would then be of the *type* that could be validated by empirical evidence.

              But, this is not what you do. In each case, you go beyond any *possible* empirical evidence and you do so in an absolutely *radical* way, thus divorcing your claims from any basis in the specific content of empirical observation.

              Incidentally, this criticism *includes* your interpretation of any personal "religious" experiences you may have had. It is *easy* to demonstrate that people's interpretations of such experiences are nearly always wrong, and that there is no reason to believe that they are *ever* right except by *pure* chance or, occasionally, by virtue of a person's particular background that gives him a *separate* basis for thinking that his emotional interpretation is correct.

              This is why my remarks about the unreliability of faith are not refuted by *more* references to beliefs based on faith. Such arguments are inherently circular. You are using faith-based beliefs to support the claim that faith-based beliefs are sound, and this is *obviously* an invalid method.

              As for your Bible claims, I'd settle for (actually, *prefer*) a rational philosophical justification for believing that it's sound, and that, beyond absolute minimal interpretive claims, we can establish an interpretation (or a narrow class of interpretations) that we can prove to be approximately correct and that still supports *your* claims about the Bible (and *its* claims).

              But, there is nothing in the Bible to justify such claims. There is nothing in it to justify
              1.        The claim of inerrancy.
              2.        That it is more than a book.
              3.        That there was *any* eyewitness to Jesus at all.
              4.        That there was any eyewitness to his "rising from the dead."
              5.        The claim that God exists.
              6.        The claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
              7.        The claim that there was a worldwide flood 4,400 years ago.
              8.        That there was massive tectonic activity exactly 4,400 years ago that first lowered the land area under water and then later raised it (or some other land area) up out of the water.
              9.        That there were dinosaurs 6,000 years ago.
              10.       Etc., etc., etc.

              Nor is there anything outside of it to justify thinking that it is correct with respect to any such *interpretations* of it. I mention this last, because the claims about the times of creation and the flood are *obviously* the result of *interpretation*. There is nothing in the Bible that says: "The Earth was created N years ago," so this claim of yours cannot come from the Bible itself, but from what you *think* it means.

              Which brings up the question of the *calculations* that you used to arrive at the claim that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, and that the alleged flood occurred 4,400 years ago. Can you please supply us with the *data* that was used in these calculations, and then show us the calculations themselves, so we may check them for ourselves?

              Or are we simply supposed to accept this claim on faith, along with the claim that Allah exists, that psychic surgery is real, and that magnets strapped to the body have healing effects distinguishably different from (and better than) the healing effects, if any, that the same bits of metal without magnetism would have if strapped to the body in the same way?

              Tim
              > [> ..These wet raindrop splashes are supposed to *fossilize* in
              this
              > mess. You claim to be a scientist. You can verify your raindrop
              > fossilization hypothesis with an experiment of your own.]
              >
              > I had read in a Natl. Geog. that Mary Leaky's human tracks were so
              > clear because the volcanic ash was wet at the time, thus holding the
              > tracks.  Seems no one disputed that?  But go ahead. 
              Drop big enough
              > drops of water into whatever substrate they were found in (sand
              etc),
              > while it is wet, and pour some plaster of paris over it with any
              > direction or force you like, and you will know in 30 minutes if this
              > is plausable.
              >
              > The Bible and Chris
              > [> Colossians 2:8 speaks of such,  "Beware lest any man
              > spoil you through philosophy [i.e., rational thought] and vain
              deceit
              > [i.e., rational thought], after the tradition of men [i.e., Newton,
              Einstein,
              > Pasteur, etc.], after the rudiments of the world, and not after
              Christ."
              >
              Susan (I think)
              > .. Morris is the God you worship.]
              >
              Tim
              > No, I worship Jesus Christ, who, for His own reasons gave this
              > evolutionist real life, hope and open eyes to ALL the science. 
              Thus
              > I was left with lists of pros and cons.  Before He quickened
              me, I
              > only had one list, and the creaionists seemed like idiots.  I
              > actually mocked them.  Morris is a very godly and meek
              man.  I would
              > be more godly and meek, even in the way I respond to you all.

              Chris
              He's also a racist and an idiot.

              Too bad you weren't able to logically evaluate your pros and cons.

              Susan
              > [.. I have a feeling it's because you can't find an answer in
              > > the creationist books you learned science out of. It's not in
              any
              > of those books because dogma is more important than truth.]

              Tim
              > Actually, just being in science for so many years allows me to
              answer
              > most things without looking at the creationist stuff. 

              Chris
              We *wish* you had been in science for years.

              > I have read
              > much more since being on this list.  They usually have good
              science
              > that at least is a viable alteritive, and that is all that is
              needed.

              Chris
              No, they need "good science" that *is* science, and that passes empirical *tests*, not merely stuff that naive children on brain-damaging drugs might think is plausible.
               
              Susan
              > [> and yet fossils are perfectly sorted in a way that makes them
              look
              > > like they evolved and *not* stirred up and all jumbled
              together.
              > You haven't been able to find an example of horseshoe crabs jumbled
              > > together with trilobites in your creationist books.]

              Tim
              > As I have said before, perfect sorting would falsify my model. 
              If I
              > began to list anomalies, would anyone even blink as they wrote them
              > off without even serious consideration?  The formed metal balls
              in
              > precambrian off South Africa will do fine. 

              Chris
              Only if it can be verified that they are really human artifacts, that they *did* come from the Precambrian, and so on. Since, so far, the only thing that has probably been verified is that they are of human manufacture. Unless all the other critical factors can be verified *scientifically* (by radiometric dating, etc.), then they are totally worthless. They mean nothing more than finding a piece of a candy wrapper on a city sidewalk.

              > As for horseshoe crabs,
              > were they living WITH trilobites?  If so, we should eventually
              find
              > fossils together.  If not, we won't, and you can say they lived
              in
              > different ages.  But ecologic sorting today is by species
              ranges and
              > not by time. Thus my question is not unreasonable.

              Chris
              *Any* kind of sorting that is incompatible with your flood theory invalidates it. Phylogenetic sorting is only *one* type of sorting that invalidates it. In fact, phylogenetic sorting *happens* also to include physical attributes that make it incompatible with your model.

              Susan
              > [> miracles are *fine*. Just don't call them SCIENCE. Science is
              a
              > study > of the *natural* world.]
              >
              Tim
              > Of course, the obvoius question is this,  "If miracles
              actually MADE
              > some or all of the observable world, are we being honest to deny the
              > hand of God because we can't repeatably observe it?" 

              Chris
              Yes, because you don't have evidence that a miracle occurred even *once*. The obvious question that would make (more) sense would be:

                       If miracles were *known* to have actually MADE some or all of the
              observable world, are we being honest do deny the hand of God
              because we can't repeatably observe it?

              Your version of the question simply *assumes* that such miracles actually occurred, despite the lack of evidence for any miracles. I've already pointed out a couple of times that you *cannot* prove a miracle unless you can prove that nothing else can produce the same effect (i.e., something we don't understand). The best you can say about some event is that you don't understand how it could have occurred non-miraculously.

              Incidentally, this would apply *even* to the known universe, even if it was shown that it *was* created 6,000 years ago. At best, we could say, "Well, we don't know how it was created."

              Put another way: 

                       *All* evidence that supposedly shows the occurrence of miracles
              really only shows lack of understanding.

              > Science is a
              > limited window.  God adjusts science.  You are having
              science limit
              > God.  The Bible says to let God be true and evey man a
              liar. 

              Chris
              Including *you*, I presume. I'm glad you are admitting your dishonesty again, even more boldly than last time. There is hope for you yet.

              Science is not a window at all. It is a method. If you want to claim that God "adjusts" science, fine, but don't expect *any* reasonable person to accept such a claim without proof. Even a lot of your fellow Christians cannot swallow such an arbitrary claim.

              > ........................
              > John 14:6  Jesus saith unto him, I am the  way, the truth,
              and the
              > life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

              Chris
              Jesus appears to be more than just a little egotistical here. Sounds like delusions of grandeur. Yet another reason I wouldn't want to have dinner with him, if he *did* exist.
            • autismuk@aol.com
              In a message dated 02/02/01 17:03:46 GMT Standard Time, ccogan@telepath.com ... therefore ... it ... All you ll get is outright denial, ignoring or Bible
              Message 6 of 20 , Feb 2, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 02/02/01 17:03:46 GMT Standard Time, ccogan@...
                writes:

                > Chris
                > It is certainly not inerrant (that's observable) and it is certainly
                > *changed*. You read the KJV, which is, first, written in English, and
                > second, demonstrably incorrect in translation in many places (and
                therefore
                > changed from the original) -- and *this* is observable, too. Also, since
                it
                > is *not* self-interpreting, and since ordinary Biblical interpretation
                > depends largely on one's *personal*, subjective feelings about things, it
                > has, for all practical purposes changed in much of the overall meaning as
                > cultures and views of the world change.

                All you'll get is outright denial, ignoring or Bible quotes you know.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.