Re: well...
Posted by anyman on Apr 19, 2002 at 00:56
(202.110.169.186)Re: well... (Andy)
you are using the classic uniformitarian assumption
you assume that the present is the key to the past
the world was DIFFERENT then
but i'll leave you to it...i'm not gonna try and force you to see it
as to the parts you find "dubious"...this is another problem...major problem
again, the book is a package deal...if you can't trust one part, then you can't trust any part
unless you know something i don't (and that is certainly possible...if so please enlighten me)...how would you know which parts are okay...which parts are right and which wrong
you still didn't respond to the point about how you would deal with the arguments i made from the new covenant books
but then, you are not required to respond to anything...and just because one doesn't respond doesn't mean he doesn't have an answer...
i would just like to know what yours is :-)
Follow Ups:
- O.o *can't think of anything fitting to put here, so I'll just say CSSUA (Contains some slightly useful analysis) Andy™ 20/4 22:58 (9)
- stepping in Bubba 27/4 02:32 (8)
- Re: stepping in Andy™ 28/4 00:53 (7)
- Re: stepping in Bubba 28/4 11:14 (6)
- Re: stepping in Andy™ 28/4 18:44 (5)
- Re: stepping in Bubba 29/4 19:31 (4)
- Re: stepping in Andy™ 29/4 22:12 (3)
- Re: stepping in Bubba 29/4 23:12 (2)
- Re: stepping in Andy™ 01/5 13:56 (1)
- Re: stepping in Bubba 02/5 08:15 (0)
- Re: well... DA Morgan 19/4 13:32 (2)
- Re: well... anyman 20/4 14:49 (1)
- Re: well... DA Morgan 22/4 13:26 (0)