Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Can we trust what God says?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    If you didn't care, you wouldn't try so hard to sound informed.
    Or maybe I actually like to learn and read, and actually am informed about a few things?

    Unfortunately, you're informed by Henry Morris and the banana man.

    Why don't you actually get to understand what a person knows/believes before you criticize it. Ray Comfort's argument is ridiculous, and Henry Morris has long since passed. There are far more recent, and informed material out there by YEC's.

    Very sophisticated stuff.
    Yeah, coming from the person who relies on psychoanalysis, and the apparent belief that he can read the minds of others.

    Yeah, it's pretty clear that you are a . Until I see a change in your attitude, I will be doing my best to not respond to your nonsense from here on out.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
      Or maybe I actually like to learn and read, and actually am informed about a few things?




      Why don't you actually get to understand what a person knows/believes before you criticize it. Ray Comfort's argument is ridiculous, and Henry Morris has long since passed. There are far more recent, and informed material out there by YEC's.
      Turd polishers all. =)



      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
      Yeah, coming from the person who relies on psychoanalysis, and the apparent belief that he can read the minds of others.
      "Darwin was evil and hated God" isn't psychoanalysis? That's straight from the banana man's playbook.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
        He isn't telling me anything...
        Nonsense. He's clearly spoken to you (and continues to do so) in nature, and has had His authoritative Word written down for your benefit. You won't be able to plead ignorance on judgment day.

        Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
        ...and so to me, his authority is irrelevant.
        Notice that this has nothing to do with whether God actually has authority, but is just an autobiographical statement on your part conveying your reaction to His authoritative revelation to you.

        Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
        You're asking me to take your word for it that your interpretation of the "Bible as a whole" is the only correct one.
        No, I'm suggesting, for your own sake, that you acknowledge the authoritative, inscripturated Word of your holy Creator.

        Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
        Why should I?
        Well, for starters, sin is punishable by eternal damnation in hell. I'd rather you not go there (pretty sure you don't wanna go there either). Secondly, if you reject my "interpretation" of the Bible (which is really just the Bible read in context) you end up with a view that reduces to absurdity. The only way you could argue against the biblical worldview is to borrow principles for reasoning from it, which is inherently irrational.

        Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
        I have not necessarily lied. I could just be mistaken.
        Good point. :) Doesn't change much though. Either the clear meaning, read in context, is affirmed, or else a false view is. But yes, you're right. Not necessarily a lie.

        Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
        To make the situation analogous, it must be the case that (1) a shed is available for me to examine, (2) I have a document that I believe you wrote, and it includes the assertion that you built a shed in 6 days, and I have reason to believe I am looking at the shed referenced by that document, (3) I cannot consider the possibility that you made any mistakes when you wrote the document, (4) you are unavailable to me for any questioning about your intentions in writing the document, (5) I have what appears to be incontrovertible evidence that the shed could not have been built in less than a century, and (6) elsewhere in writings attributed to you is the statement: "As for as Mr. Black is concerned, a day and a century might as well be the same thing."

        In that situation, would it not be reasonable for me to infer that your intended meaning of "6 days" was something other than its usual meaning in ordinary discourse?
        If this is supposed to be completely analogous to the Bible, then no, it definitely would not be reasonable to conclude a longer period than 6 literal days. The context of 2 Peter 3:8 (the verse to which you're most likely referring) is not about the creation week, or the days within that week. It's about Christ's second coming. Peter was telling the congregation that in the last days mockers will come claiming that God has delayed His coming (essentially asking the rhetorical question, "Gee, where's that God of yours who said He'd be coming back?"). Notice that in that verse the word "day" is contrasted with a thousand years, which means the word "day" has a literal meaning. Thus Peter's point was that God is not bound by time because He's eternal (in fact, He created time), and so He can accomplish in one day what men or "nature" would require a very long time to accomplish.
        Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by whag View Post
          Then I guess God lied to you, because the earth originated like all planets do.
          Really? It was? Were you there?

          Originally posted by whag View Post
          Also, it's everyone's business to be epistemologically sharp. You have no business reading your Bible without knowing what allegory meant to ancient people.
          Oh I know what alegory meant. But I also know what historical narrative is as well, and Jesus took Genesis to be historical narrative.


          Originally posted by whag View Post
          We can't have that discussion because you don't know what it means.
          Epistemology is the study of the limits and scope of knowledge. It explores what we know, and how we come to know it.

          Originally posted by whag View Post
          Epistemology is supposed to help you answer questions about reliable knowledge. Instead, you're using the word as a gimmick to make your belief system sound sophisticated.
          Let's put this claim of yours to the test then. How do you, as a non-christian, know anything at all? What's the standard for knowledge in your worldview? What is the ontic base which grounds the preconditions of intelligibility (i.e., laws of logic, uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, basic reliability of senses, memory, cognitive faculties, etc) in your worldview, and what is the epistemology which makes that ontic base known?

          Originally posted by whag View Post
          You're right. It's more likely that archaeologists, paleontologists, biologists, and geneticists just made everything up.
          So, people who weren't there then, as opposed to God, who was.
          And no. Each person interprets the evidence according to the assumptions in their worldview. Secular concepts make construct a worldview that reduces to absurdity.
          Still waiting for this irrefutable proof by the way. Please back up your claims.
          Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            Where does Genesis say that? Every translation reads as "there was evening and there was morning" - That's a span of 12 hours, and night at that.
            Evening and morning denotes an end to the first day, and the begging of the second. That's clear evidence that God didn't mean long epochs of time.

            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            Centuries, millenia, thousands of millenia. That is a valid sub-definition of "day" in Hebrew.
            No one is arguing that day can't have more than one meaning. The point is that the context of Genesis 1 (with the use of "evening & morning"), and other clear statements in Scripture (like Exodus 20:11, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day) require a literal meaning of "day" (Hebrew "Yom") in Genesis 1.

            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            Interpreting "day" to mean anything else in Genesis 1 creates a contradiction with Genesis 2
            False. This is why context is so important. People skim through the Bible for any verse they can cherry pick to take out of context. Genesis 1:12:3 provides us with an overview and a chronological account of what God did on each of the days during the creation week. Genesis 2:425 zooms in on day six and shows some of the events of that day. In context "Day" in Genesis 2 is meant as a representative term for the creation week of Genesis 1. No contradiction. Nice try though.

            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            Genesis may be entirely mythical
            It's historical narrative.

            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            I thought you believed that the Bible was 100% inspired by God.
            It is. And if you reject that claim you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity.
            Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              I don't deny that, and I tried to qualify my statements.
              I figured you didn't. Just wanted to let you clarify.
              Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                Really? It was? Were you there?
                No, were you? Investigation allows us to know things without being there. If someone killed your child and left clues about what happened, you wouldn't ask the investigator such a stupid question.



                Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post

                Epistemology is the study of the limits and scope of knowledge. It explores what we know, and how we come to know it.
                Exactly. Now you can tell me what scientific facts you accept as reliable knowledge. Make sure to specify if you were "there" or not.



                Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                Let's put this claim of yours to the test then. How do you, as a non-christian, know anything at all? What's the standard for knowledge in your worldview? What is the ontic base which grounds the preconditions of intelligibility (i.e., laws of logic, uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, basic reliability of senses, memory, cognitive faculties, etc) in your worldview, and what is the epistemology which makes that ontic base known?
                How about evidence and the principles of investigation? It sounds like you reserve the right to reject investigation as a means to come to reliable conclusions. Please clarify.

                Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                So, people who weren't there then, as opposed to God, who was.
                This is an odd tactic you have. You repeat the line that I "wasn't there," while concurrently knowing you weren't a direct witness to events you *believe* happened. The difference is that I have the epistemelogically grounded principles of investigation to inform my views while you have dogma. Do you have more than dogma and your notes from Philosophy 101?


                Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                And no. Each person interprets the evidence according to the assumptions in their worldview. Secular concepts make construct a worldview that reduces to absurdity.
                Still waiting for this irrefutable proof by the way. Please back up your claims.
                Refute human chromosome #2.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                  Evening and morning denotes an end to the first day, and the begging of the second. That's clear evidence that God didn't mean long epochs of time.
                  1/ Hebrew counts a day as starting in the evening, so - no - morning didn't begin a following day. This point shouldn't need pointing out. "and evening and morning were the first day" comes AFTER the events of the first day, and the passage states that evening and morning bracketed that same day.


                  No one is arguing that day can't have more than one meaning. The point is that the context of Genesis 1 (with the use of "evening & morning"), and other clear statements in Scripture (like Exodus 20:11, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day) require a literal meaning of "day" (Hebrew "Yom") in Genesis 1.
                  That shows that there were six terms of work and one term of rest, translating to a solar day for human purposes. In short, the 6 solar days and the sabbath were, as in all things, allegorical of the heavenly type. Again - a literal six day interpretation falls apart the moment that Genesis 2 comes into play.


                  False. This is why context is so important. People skim through the Bible for any verse they can cherry pick to take out of context. Genesis 1:12:3 provides us with an overview and a chronological account of what God did on each of the days during the creation week. Genesis 2:425 zooms in on day six and shows some of the events of that day. In context "Day" in Genesis 2 is meant as a representative term for the creation week of Genesis 1. No contradiction. Nice try though.
                  You're saying that the day of Genesis 1 is 24 hours when the time periods as defined in Genesis 1 deny the possibility.


                  It's historical narrative.



                  It is. And if you reject that claim you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity.
                  This promotes a viewpoint that contradicts the actual Biblical record. Nothing in the Bible declares everything in it is inspired by God, and Paul explicitly declares that certain of his comments are NOT inspired by God, but Paul's own opinion.
                  Last edited by tabibito; 08-28-2014, 02:25 PM.
                  sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                    He isn't telling me anything...
                    Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                    He's clearly spoken to you (and continues to do so)
                    You say so. I have no reason to just your word for it.

                    Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                    and has had His authoritative Word written down for your benefit. You won't be able to plead ignorance on judgment day.
                    You say so.

                    Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                    No, I'm suggesting, for your own sake, that you acknowledge the authoritative, inscripturated Word of your holy Creator.
                    Call it a suggestion if you like. It's still just your word. You are telling me that I'd better believe it just because you say so.

                    Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                    Well, for starters, sin is punishable by eternal damnation in hell.
                    You say so.

                    Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                    I'd rather you not go there
                    Then give me a good reason to believe what you're telling me.

                    Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                    Secondly, if you reject my "interpretation" of the Bible (which is really just the Bible read in context) you end up with a view that reduces to absurdity.
                    I have only your word for that.

                    Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                    The only way you could argue against the biblical worldview is to borrow principles for reasoning from it
                    The Bible contains no principles of reasoning.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                      If this is supposed to be completely analogous to the Bible, then no, it definitely would not be reasonable to conclude a longer period than 6 literal days. The context of 2 Peter 3:8 (the verse to which you're most likely referring) is not about the creation week, or the days within that week. It's about Christ's second coming. Peter was telling the congregation that in the last days mockers will come claiming that God has delayed His coming (essentially asking the rhetorical question, "Gee, where's that God of yours who said He'd be coming back?"). Notice that in that verse the word "day" is contrasted with a thousand years, which means the word "day" has a literal meaning. Thus Peter's point was that God is not bound by time because He's eternal (in fact, He created time), and so He can accomplish in one day what men or "nature" would require a very long time to accomplish.
                      I have no interest in having an exegetical argument with you on this particular issue. I've made my point, and you've made yours. As far as I'm concerned, the lurkers can take from here for themselves.
                      Last edited by Doug Shaver; 08-28-2014, 11:11 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by whag View Post
                        No, were you?
                        Nope. Neither were any of the fallible, ignorant human beings whose views you wish to dogmatize. God was there though, so He's the only reliable witness.


                        Originally posted by whag View Post
                        Exactly. Now you can tell me what scientific facts you accept as reliable knowledge. Make sure to specify if you were "there" or not.
                        1.) Facts are not the same thing as knowledge. You can have knowledge of facts, but facts are not knowledge.
                        2.) The heavens and earth were created in six literal days. As was said above, I wasn't there, but that's a moot point, as I have testimony from God, who knows everything, can't lie, and was there.


                        Originally posted by whag View Post
                        How about evidence and the principles of investigation?
                        Because God created everything and upholds the universe in a consistent, law-like fashion (Hebrews 1:3, Genesis 8:22) science and investigation make sense in the biblical worldview. They don't make any sense in your worldview because you've rejected the basis for holding to the uniformity of nature. Non-christians do science and come to know things only by stealing principles from the Christian metaphysic, which means to attempt to utilize them to argue against Christinity is self-defeating, as it pulls the rug out from under your own efforts.


                        Originally posted by whag View Post
                        It sounds like you reserve the right to reject investigation as a means to come to reliable conclusions. Please clarify.
                        Each person can look at "evidence" and investigate, but because each person interprets the evidence according to their worldview (which determines what the investigator takes to be the scope and limits of possibility) each person will look at the same evidence and draw wildly different conclusions. Therefore an appeal to empirical evidence won't (because it can't) settle the debate. One's worldview determines what they make of the evidence, so it's a worldview issue at the end of the day.



                        Originally posted by whag View Post
                        This is an odd tactic you have. You repeat the line that I "wasn't there," while concurrently knowing you weren't a direct witness to events you *believe* happened.
                        1.) This is the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. I addressed this misunderstanding of yours above.
                        2.) Are you saying that I can't know that the Bible is true?


                        Originally posted by whag View Post
                        The difference is that I have the epistemelogically grounded principles of investigation to inform my views...
                        Ohh goody. I'm in for a treat now. So, you have "epistemelogically grounded" principles, do you? Let's test this.
                        1.) What, specifically, are these principles?
                        2.) What is the ontic base which grounds these principles in your worldview?
                        3.) What is the epistemology that makes that ontic base know in your worldview?


                        Originally posted by whag View Post
                        ... while you have dogma. Do you have more than dogma and your notes from Philosophy 101?
                        1.) Dogma isn't necessarily a bad thing. Everyone holds to something dogmatically (we couldn't reason if we didn't). There's derisive dogma (which is held to irrationally and welcomes no rational inquiry on the matter), and then there's rational dogma, which is held to because the contrary is absurd.
                        2.) I have proof of my views. (a) God said it. (b) If you reject His Word (and therefore the worldview that's articulated in His Word) you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity because it can't account for the preconditions of intelligibility (laws of logic, uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, basic reliability of senses, memory, cognitive faculties, etc). That's my argument. If you want to disagree with that, then, in order not to beg the question, you'll need to show that your worldview can account for said preconditions, which would entail the requisite ontic base and corresponding epistemology I mentioned above.


                        Originally posted by whag View Post
                        Refute human chromosome #2.
                        How is that proof for evolution? Tossing terms at me is not argumentation. Please explain, in your own words, why you think chromosome #2 proves evolution with 100% certainty.
                        Last edited by Mr. Black; 08-30-2014, 03:41 PM.
                        Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          1/ Hebrew counts a day as starting in the evening, so - no - morning didn't begin a following day.
                          Good point. I was sleep deprived yesterday and had a brain fart. But thanks, you just refuted your own point, as the evening and morning denote the start and end of the first day by noting that both halves of the day had passed.


                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          That shows that there were six terms of work and one term of rest, translating to a solar day for human purposes. In short, the 6 solar days and the sabbath were, as in all things, allegorical of the heavenly type. Again - a literal six day interpretation falls apart the moment that Genesis 2 comes into play.
                          Not at all. God was establishing six terms of work, which was six days. And His basis for setting six days of work for man was that He Himself worked six days and then rested on the seventh.


                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          You're saying that the day of Genesis 1 is 24 hours when the time periods as defined in Genesis 1 deny the possibility.
                          No, they don't and Exodus 20:11 confirms it.



                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          This promotes a viewpoint that contradicts the actual Biblical record. Nothing in the Bible declares everything in it is inspired by God,
                          1.) Scripture does make the claim (2 Timothy 3:6, for example).
                          2.) That wouldn't be a contradiction anyway. Claiming something that is not explicitly stated in Scripture is not the same thing as claiming something that's denied by Scripture.

                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          ...and Paul explicitly declares that certain of his comments are NOT inspired by God, but Paul's own opinion.
                          Notice that there's a difference between (1) God inspiring a document that's all merely His own words, and (2) God inspiring a document that contains reports of what others have said. In both cases the document is fully inspired by God, and therefore is an accurate report of the events.

                          Also, I'm curious as to what your refutation would be regarding my argument in my last comment. Since "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" are deposited in Christ, and consequently if you have a philosophy of life that's rooted in the "elementary principles of the world" rather than "in Christ" you end up being robbed of those treasures (Colossians 2:3,8) the biblical worldview is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Since God is the ontic base which grounds the preconditions of intelligibility, and His revelation to mankind (both general in nature and special in Scripture) is the epistemology which makes Him known, if God did not exist and reveal Himself to mankind, we couldn't know anything. Therefore, if you don't start with Him at the base of your reasoning (granting Him and His revelation a place of logical preeminence in your thinking) you can't prove anything.
                          So, let's see if you're up to the challenge. Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?
                          Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                            You say so. I have no reason to just your word for it.
                            Agreed. You have every reason to trust God's Word though. :)


                            Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                            You say so.
                            I say so because God said so.


                            Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                            Call it a suggestion if you like. It's still just your word.
                            This is a pretty strong claim, and amounts to a claim to know the Bible is not God's Word. To do this you'll have to refute the argument I presented in your other thread on revelation.

                            Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                            You are telling me that I'd better believe it just because you say so.
                            Straw man fallacy. God said that you know Him already in your heart of hearts, and that you suppress that truth in unrighteousness. You evidence this appealing to the preconditions of intelligibility (which only He can provide) in your arguments.


                            Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                            Then give me a good reason to believe what you're telling me.
                            Well, the fact that, when you reject what the worldview I'm presenting to you, you undermine your ability to make intelligible all other claims, is a pretty darn good reason.


                            Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                            I have only your word for that.
                            Then you'll have no problem justifying your knowledge claims. ;)


                            Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                            The Bible contains no principles of reasoning.
                            I didn't say "the Bible", I said "the biblical worldview", as in, the worldview that's articulated in the Bible.
                            Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mr. Black
                              He's clearly spoken to you (and continues to do so)

                              Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                              I have no reason to just [take] your word for it.
                              Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                              Agreed. You have every reason to trust God's Word though. :)
                              That is irrelevant until you give me a reason to think I have his word for something.

                              Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                              Call it a suggestion if you like. It's still just your word.

                              Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                              This is a pretty strong claim, and amounts to a claim to know the Bible is not God's Word.
                              It amounts to nothing of the sort. You are claiming in effect that I must believe anything you say except for whatever I can prove is false.

                              Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                              You are telling me that I'd better believe it just because you say so.

                              Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                              Straw man fallacy.
                              How so? You're not giving me any other reason to believe it.

                              Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                              God said . . . .
                              You say he said it.

                              Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                              when you reject what the worldview I'm presenting to you, you undermine your ability to make intelligible all other claims
                              Prove it. It isn't so just because you say so.

                              Originally posted by Mr. Black
                              if you reject my "interpretation" of the Bible (which is really just the Bible read in context) you end up with a view that reduces to absurdity.

                              Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                              I have only your word for that.
                              Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                              Then you'll have no problem justifying your knowledge claims. ;)
                              I have nothing to justify until I make a knowledge claim. So far, you're the only one doing that.

                              Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                              The Bible contains no principles of reasoning.

                              Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                              I didn't say "the Bible", I said "the biblical worldview", as in, the worldview that's articulated in the Bible.
                              If the Bible doesn't say it in so many words, then all I'm getting is your interpretation of the Bible. Up to now, you have given me no reason, other than your say-so, to accept your interpretation in preference to that of any other Christian who believes that the Bible is God's word.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                                That is irrelevant until you give me a reason to think I have his word for something.
                                I've given you a reason, but my giving you a reason and your acknowledgment of that fact are two different things, now aren't they? ;)


                                Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                                I have nothing to justify until I make a knowledge claim.
                                That's a knowledge claim right there.

                                Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                                So far, you're the only one doing that.
                                This is self-refuting, as this claim of yours is itself a knowledge claim. It's like saying, "I know I'm not making a knowledge claim." Plus we just saw a knowledge claim from you above.


                                Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                                Prove it.
                                You've already proved it for me in your thread on Divine Revelation. :)
                                Last edited by Mr. Black; 08-30-2014, 04:55 PM.
                                Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by eider, Yesterday, 12:23 AM
                                40 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post eider
                                by eider
                                 
                                Started by seer, 10-20-2021, 07:50 AM
                                32 responses
                                188 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Juvenal, 10-13-2021, 08:41 AM
                                19 responses
                                119 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mossrose  
                                Started by seer, 10-11-2021, 06:32 PM
                                9 responses
                                81 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Machinist  
                                Started by lee_merrill, 10-08-2021, 06:03 PM
                                5 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X