Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 49 of 49
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard
    I am taking what you have said in another thread and bringing it back into this thread where the conclusion should be drawn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I think it would be great if we could finish that conversation. All we need to do is begin with your formulation of the paradox and walk through the logic step by step. If we find a point we can't agree, then we will discuss it until we come to agreement. What could be simpler? It's just basic logic after all!
    Now that we have some new members on the forum, they might like to contribute once we start over again. However, before we get started, I am going to quote what you written to dpenn in another thread and then use that as my reason to give my version and summarize what has gone on for the benefit of our new members.
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I explained the meaning of the subjunctive because it was at the root of a debate with David that lasted for two years. David had formed an argument to prove that God's angels in heaven cannot sin because that would create a contradiction with the idea that "God's will is done in heaven." I tried to clarify the discussion by formalizing David's contradiction in clear logic so we could analyze it. I wrote it as follows:

    There would be a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet God's angels in heaven could sin.

    David has never accepted that statement even though it is nothing but a precise formulation of the argument he presented. He says it implies that God's angels actually do sin. This is because he is reading the word "could" as the past tense of "can" rather than as the subjunctive. I've explained it a million times yet he refuses to even answer the explanations. We went round and round and round and round. He refused to follow any logic to completion. I explained his error in this post (and dozens of others), and here he is repeating exactly the same error again. It's very strange. He also rejects the use of the words "and yet" on the pretext that they would imply that "God's angels actually sin." See this post.
    **************
    My Summary:

    Although the argument has its roots in the statement of the paradox, the subjunctive was not at the root of my argument to begin with. I was asking Richard to reword his formulation of the paradox, which he would not do. This argument has spread over many threads and another key thread related to this is; Can God's Angels be trusted?

    This is what Richard has said at the beginning of this thread;
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there David,

    I like the way you framed this discussion. A nice, clearly stated "paradox." That should make for some good progress.
    I never "stated" the paradox, but quoted the two verses that make up the paradox. The fact is; this formulation of the paradox had begun in another of my threads; War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7 There Richard put words in my mouth as if I had formulated the paradox expressed by Richard. Richard's formulation of the paradox was as I read it; "God's will is done in Heaven, and yet God's Angels could sin". I was not happy with that sentence. That sentence as it stands is not the use of the subjunctive clause, but with Richard adding the word "if" before it, somehow transforms it to the subjunctive. I objected to the word "could". What you have to understand and know is where Richard is coming from in his argument. I know how Richard has argued elsewhere that God's Angels did sin before being kicked out of Heaven and maybe at the time Jesus was saying his prayer, the Angels that had sinned might not have been in God's presence. If I can find the links to those post where Richard gave his answers, I will come back and post it here.

    Before Richard brought up the (exc)use of the subjunctive clause and before that twist, Richard tried to win his argument by using the logical agument of; "P and NOT P", hence we ended up disagreeing on the use of the "Law of non-contradiction". My objection, which of course Richard simply ignores and does not accept, is what I quote from Wikipedia; "One difficulty in applying the law of non-contradiction is ambiguity in the propositions". As Richard argues for elsewhere and quotes Voltaire (I agree); "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms"

    Richard claimed to have formulated the paradox "succinctly" with "perfect precision". I disagreed. Eventually, Richard agreed that the word "yet" is superfluous. I then pointed out that the phrase "and yet", although commonly used, is grammatically incorrect. In addition, the phrase "and yet", when at the beginning of a sentence can be interpreted as saying colloquially; "that maybe so, but ...." That was something I found out while researching. Once found, it becomes a fact. The fact that those two words can imply something else, leaves room for ambiguity, but as I know what Richard thinks about Angels, I see his words as a subliminal message.

    Ambiguity has been at the heart of Richard's formulation. In trying to make an all embracing formulation, Richard then came up with something else that I disagreed with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I would like to generalize this by replacing the location "heaven" with a general location "X" as follows:
    The fact that Gods will is done in location X implies that God's angels in location X cannot sin.
    Is that acceptable to you? Do you agree that the logic is identical to your argument? If not, then we'll have to discuss it.
    As I was explaining to Richard before he generalized, we have a situation where we have two locations; earth and Heaven. God's Angels can be in both places, and man (in his sinful state) can only be on earth. Men both do and fail to do God's will, whereas I claim, God's Angels, which are in Heaven (and can be on earth), do his will.

    ***************

    That is my summary of what has taken place.

    Richard, you have proposed we start afresh, maybe our new members will contribute to the logical way you want to tackle the subject. I suggest to anyone who contributes to begin, they start in reply to post #4, or Richard, you can begin first with your new post starting from here.

    All the best
    David

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,105
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    Quote Originally Posted by David M
    What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved. Explaining Jude 6 or 2 Peter 2:4 to show that the angles referred to are not God’s Angels in Heaven removes the paradox. The same can be done for any passage in the Bible which implies God’s Angels in Heaven can sin.
    Hey there David,

    I like the way you framed this discussion. A nice, clearly stated "paradox." That should make for some good progress.
    I never "stated" the paradox, but quoted the two verses that make up the paradox. The fact is; this formulation of the paradox had begun in another of my threads; War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7 There Richard put words in my mouth as if I had formulated the paradox expressed by Richard. Richard's formulation of the paradox was as I read it; God's will is done in Heaven, and yet God's Angels could sin". I was not happy with that sentence. That sentence as it stands is not the use of the subjunctive clause, but with Richard adding the word "if" before it, somehow transforms it to the subjunctive.
    Good afternoon David,

    I think it's an excellent idea that we go back to your original formulation of the paradox, as I quoted above, but I don't understand why you are "not happy with that sentence" I wrote (highlighted red). Please explain how it differs from your statement of the paradox. You said the paradox consists of two statements P and Q:

    P = Peter tells us; “angels sinned”

    Q = Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven

    Plugging these into your original statement of the paradox, we have:

    David: What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. P and Q. This paradox must be resolved.

    You said the paradox could be resolved by assuming that "the angels referred to are not God’s Angels in Heaven." Therefore, according to your argument, P contradicts Q only if we assume that P is talking about God's Angels in heaven. Therefore, I used that specification in my formulation of the paradox:

    X = God's will is done in heaven = Q

    Y = God's Angels in heaven could sin = P (with the specification that it refers to God's Angels, not human messengers)

    I then formulated your paradox as "There would be a contradiction if X and yet Y."

    After much discussion about the meaning of the phrase "and yet" I explicitly agreed that the "yet" could be dropped (without changing the meaning) and agreed to do so because you insisted it somehow created some "ambiguity" in the meaning of the sentence. Thus, I reformulated my statement to be:

    There would be a contradiction if X and Y.

    To review:

    David says "P and Q" is a paradox if we assume that P refers to "God's Angels in heaven."

    Richard says the same paradox can be stated as "X and Y."

    Please explain how "X and Y" differs from "P and Q."

    Thanks!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Good afternoon David,

    I think it's an excellent idea that we go back to your original formulation of the paradox, as I quoted above, but I don't understand why you are "not happy with that sentence" I wrote (highlighted red). Please explain how it differs from your statement of the paradox. You said the paradox consists of two statements P and Q:

    P = Peter tells us; “angels sinned”

    Q = Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven

    Plugging these into your original statement of the paradox, we have:

    David: What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. P and Q. This paradox must be resolved.

    You said the paradox could be resolved by assuming that "the angels referred to are not God’s Angels in Heaven." Therefore, according to your argument, P contradicts Q only if we assume that P is talking about God's Angels in heaven. Therefore, I used that specification in my formulation of the paradox:

    X = God's will is done in heaven = Q

    Y = God's Angels in heaven could sin = P (with the specification that it refers to God's Angels, not human messengers)

    I then formulated your paradox as "There would be a contradiction if X and yet Y."

    After much discussion about the meaning of the phrase "and yet" I explicitly agreed that the "yet" could be dropped (without changing the meaning) and agreed to do so because you insisted it somehow created some "ambiguity" in the meaning of the sentence. Thus, I reformulated my statement to be:

    There would be a contradiction if X and Y.

    To review:

    David says "P and Q" is a paradox if we assume that P refers to "God's Angels in heaven."

    Richard says the same paradox can be stated as "X and Y."

    Please explain how "X and Y" differs from "P and Q."

    Thanks!

    Richard
    We both know there is not really a paradox (a contradiction). We have our explanations (which are different) for why there is no actual paradox. Eventually, (in this thread), you have to explain why you understand there is no paradox.

    I have no problem understanding the logic you are using; my only problem is agreeing the words which you refuse to change and so word your formulation of the paradox differently.

    We have to agree terms, and by terms, I mean words. It is possible that, either I do not understand what the words mean, or the words are ambiguous (by having more than one meaning). Therefore, I ask you to explain what you mean by the words; “and yet could”. Please use alternative words to define those words in your formulation of the paradox, so I am able to understand precisely what you mean.

    I have never defined Y as “(and yet) God’s Angels could sin”. These are your words. It does not matter whether those words are used to define Q or Y.
    My definition of P (X) and Q (Y) is as follows. I will define P (X) as; God’s will is done in Heaven. I will define Q (Y) as; Angels sin.

    Why do I regard those two statements as a paradox? Because the only beings in Heaven beside God are his Angels. Sinful beings cannot be in the presence of God in his dwelling place. An Angel that has sinned against God, even if only once, has not done God’s will constantly. That contrasts, or contradicts with the words of Jesus in his prayer; (Matt 6:10)Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Alternatively, we can quote from Luke 11:2; Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

    Expressing the paradox in another way, we can say; “on one hand we have Peter who says (2 Peter 2:4); “the angels that sinned” and on the other hand, we have Jesus saying; “God’s will is done in Heaven””.

    All the best
    David

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,105
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I have never defined Y as “(and yet) God’s Angels could sin”. These are your words. It does not matter whether those words are used to define Q or Y.
    My definition of P (X) and Q (Y) is as follows. I will define P (X) as; God’s will is done in Heaven. I will define Q (Y) as; Angels sin.
    Good morning David,

    Those are not my words. I explicitly OMITTED the word "yet" in my statement "X and Y." It does not exist in my statement as given in my comment. Your response makes no sense. It has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Why do I regard those two statements as a paradox? Because the only beings in Heaven beside God are his Angels. Sinful beings cannot be in the presence of God in his dwelling place. An Angel that has sinned against God, even if only once, has not done God’s will constantly. That contrasts, or contradicts with the words of Jesus in his prayer; (Matt 6:10)Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Alternatively, we can quote from Luke 11:2; Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
    Excellent. Thank you for your explanation. To be clear: You appear to be saying that the reason angels cannot sin is because of their LOCATION "in the presence of God in heaven." Is that correct?

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Good morning David,

    Those are not my words. I explicitly OMITTED the word "yet" in my statement "X and Y." It does not exist in my statement as given in my comment. Your response makes no sense. It has nothing to do with what I wrote.


    Excellent. Thank you for your explanation. To be clear: You appear to be saying that the reason angels cannot sin is because of their LOCATION "in the presence of God in heaven." Is that correct?

    All the best,

    Richard
    Hello Richard
    We are making a little progress. OK, I accept you have dropped the double conjunction. I think you can drop the "would" and "if" that precedes the paradox and state what the paradox is. The paradox can be formulated as a hypothetical statement, but is not necessary. That leaves you to explain why you need to use the auxiliary verb "could", when the verb "to sin" can be used in the present or past tense.

    I think the question will eventually come down to deciding whether God's Angels sin or not. I shall say "no" and you will say "yes" based on past remarks, but we will see once you state how you resolve the paradox, such that there is no paradox.

    I am saying God's Angels do not sin (anywhere). Location has nothing to do with this. It is not in the nature of Angels to sin. I only refer to God's "Angels" in Heaven to make a clear distinction between "angels" that are human and are limited to earth. Hence, my resolving of the paradox for me comes down to identifying the difference between (God's) Angels (upper case) and human angels (lower case).

    All the best
    David

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,105
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by David M
    Why do I regard those two statements as a paradox? Because the only beings in Heaven beside God are his Angels. Sinful beings cannot be in the presence of God in his dwelling place. An Angel that has sinned against God, even if only once, has not done God’s will constantly. That contrasts, or contradicts with the words of Jesus in his prayer; (Matt 6:10)Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Alternatively, we can quote from Luke 11:2; Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
    Excellent. Thank you for your explanation. To be clear: You appear to be saying that the reason angels cannot sin is because of their LOCATION "in the presence of God in heaven." Is that correct?
    I am saying God's Angels do not sin (anywhere). Location has nothing to do with this. It is not in the nature of Angels to sin. I only refer to God's "Angels" in Heaven to make a clear distinction between "angels" that are human and are limited to earth. Hence, my resolving of the paradox for me comes down to identifying the difference between (God's) Angels (upper case) and human angels (lower case).
    Thanks for the explanation David, but now I am confused. The reason you gave (highlighted red) is based on the location of the angels in heaven. Now you say the real reason has nothing to do with location. Therefore, your original explanation makes no sense.

    So let's try it again. Here is what you wrote:

    David: What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved.

    Please explain why those two statements would appear to form a paradox. What exactly is the paradox that must be resolved?

    Thanks!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Thanks for the explanation David, but now I am confused. The reason you gave (highlighted red) is based on the location of the angels in heaven. Now you say the real reason has nothing to do with location. Therefore, your original explanation makes no sense.

    So let's try it again. Here is what you wrote:

    David: What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved.

    Please explain why those two statements would appear to form a paradox. What exactly is the paradox that must be resolved?

    Thanks!

    Richard
    Hello Richard

    Why are you confused and appear to be acting so dumb? Is this thread going to dwindle to nothing, because you claim not to understand what I have been saying? I have repeated myself ad nausea answering the same questions from you. I have stated the paradox again and again. You even said I had explained it very clearly at the start of this thread, before you gave your formulation of the paradox in a way that I have been unhappy with.

    Please give me the explanation to the question of "why" in my previous post. Here it is again; "That leaves you to explain why you need to use the auxiliary verb "could", when the verb "to sin" can be used in the present or past tense."

    You are fixated on location. I am not changing what I have said from the beginning. God's Angels can be in Heaven or on earth (when sent by God). The location of the Angels of God has nothing to do with the paradox. Jesus is referring to God's Angels in Heaven doing God's will in Heaven. Only Angels can be in the presence of God, because they are sinless. Jesus only ascended to God after proving he was sinless and God has bestowed upon Jesus immortality. Jesus can no more be tempted to sin and will remain sinless for ever. Jesus is now like (even above) the Angels, because they have immortality. There is no place for immortal sinners in God's Kingdom. Men who are "the angels" on earth are not in Heaven and can never be in Heaven while they are sinful. That is why Jesus was praying for God's will to be done on earth as it is done in Heaven. Ultimately, the time will come, when sin and death on this earth has been done away with and God's will, is done "in earth as it is in Heaven"

    This must be the last time I have to repeat the same answers.

    If you do not accept the answers I am giving you , then let's see what our other readers make of it. I expect they can give their statement of the paradox and maybe give their solution at the same time.

    All the best
    David

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,105
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard

    Why are you confused and appear to be acting so dumb? Is this thread going to dwindle to nothing, because you claim not to understand what I have been saying? I have repeated myself ad nausea answering the same questions from you. I have stated the paradox again and again. You even said I had explained it very clearly at the start of this thread, before you gave your formulation of the paradox in a way that I have been unhappy with.

    Please give me the explanation to the question of "why" in my previous post. Here it is again; "That leaves you to explain why you need to use the auxiliary verb "could", when the verb "to sin" can be used in the present or past tense."

    You are fixated on location. I am not changing what I have said from the beginning. God's Angels can be in Heaven or on earth (when sent by God). The location of the Angels of God has nothing to do with the paradox. Jesus is referring to God's Angels in Heaven doing God's will in Heaven. Only Angels can be in the presence of God, because they are sinless. Jesus only ascended to God after proving he was sinless and God has bestowed upon Jesus immortality. Jesus can no more be tempted to sin and will remain sinless for ever. Jesus is now like (even above) the Angels, because they have immortality. There is no place for immortal sinners in God's Kingdom. Men who are "the angels" on earth are not in Heaven and can never be in Heaven while they are sinful. That is why Jesus was praying for God's will to be done on earth as it is done in Heaven. Ultimately, the time will come, when sin and death on this earth has been done away with and God's will, is done "in earth as it is in Heaven"

    This must be the last time I have to repeat the same answers.

    If you do not accept the answers I am giving you , then let's see what our other readers make of it. I expect they can give their statement of the paradox and maybe give their solution at the same time.

    All the best
    David
    Hey there David,

    I see you are now repeating the same errors and absurdities I refuted over a year ago in post #154 in the Can God's Angels in heaven be trusted? thread. I see no reason to repeat myself.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there David,
    I see you are now repeating the same errors and absurdities I refuted over a year ago in post #154 in the Can God's Angels in heaven be trusted? thread. I see no reason to repeat myself.
    Hello Richard
    I agree there is no point in repeating yourself. I thought we were getting to the root of the problem. It seems like as we are getting very close to doing that and maybe exposing the nonsense you wrote that you have been forcing on me, you finally quit and revert to post #154. We can only go round in circles from here, for you fail to complete the task of drilling down to the root of the problem. Now it is getting to the point where you have lost the debate about your formulation, and you have reverted to type. In my book, you have lost another argument.

    You have avoided answering my last question repeated in the previous two posts. You might think it irrelevant to answer the question, but to me, you have shown that you did not formulate the paradox "succinctly" and without "precision" as you claimed. With your latest revelation about debunking your own work; 'The Bible Wheel', I would advise everyone not to listen to you and your interpretation of what you think the Bible means. You have a great knowledge of facts, but zero Wisdom. You will rely on the Bible authors quoting folklore and myth to say that the Bible teaches the same folklore and myth. You quote figurative language and say that is the reality. There is no foundation of reasoning possible with you about anything in the Bible. I might agree with you about some of the things you have said to others quoting references in the Bible, but that does not mean I give you credit for understanding much in the Bible. Now I know, that it is pointless entering any debate with you on Biblical subjects. We all know your fallback position. Here is the last part of post #154 so that our new members can read your reply here;

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your new formulation of your argument is a travesty of ambiguity, especially in light of your own words over the last year. You now say "I have agreed to the following sentence; God's will is done in Heaven and angels can sin." That's totally insane. You are deliberately EQUIVOCATING on the word "angels" which could mean either human messengers or divine agents. Equivocation is one of the most obvious and elementary LOGICAL FALLACIES!

    This is insane. You have constantly accused me of introducing "ambiguities" when you are the one actually doing that! You have equivocated over the meaning of the word "if" and "yet" and "could" and now you say you are willing to agree to a totally AMBIGUOUS statement like "God's will is done in Heaven and angels can sin." Is there no bottom to the abyss of your mind?

    This has absolutely nothing to do with whether L67 or I "believe in God and his word" because the vast majority of people who "believe in God and his word" also believe that God's angels that were in heaven sinned and were cast to the earth, just like the Bible says:

    Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

    Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

    Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

    2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

    Your "explanations" of these verses are based on your own idiosyncratic, fallacious, and radically inconsistent LOGIC, so why would anyone believe in them? You don't even believe your own words!
    In view of your own belief of what the Bible means (says), you show a lack of Wisdom that comes from understanding the Bible. You talk of me being absurd, to divert from your own absurdities. You have the cheek to formulate the paradox and put words in my mouth about a paradox that you say is not there. Whether intentionally or not, you have subliminally formulated the paradox, which supports your conclusion. That is what I maintained almost from the beginning, and so once again, I am repeating by way of concluding this subject and thread. I think our more discerning Bible Scholars have already figured you out and the tactics you use.

    You have not fully explained why there is no paradox as you explained to me in another thread a long time ago and I was hoping you would confirm by way of answering the subject fully. Your answers at that time did not stand up. You used Rev 12:7 which was future to the time of Jesus's prayer. That meant Satan and his angels had not been kicked out of heaven when Jesus was speaking, so that makes Jesus a liar. Your next answer (idea) was that the sinful Angels were not in the immediate presence of God in Heaven at the time Jesus was speaking. There is no foundation from the Bible to support that idea. I have given you the relevant Biblical references to support my side of the argument.

    You have failed to agree the terms for which you will quote Voltaire to others. The actual basis you work on is reason for anyone not to get into a debate with you. You have turned into a serpent, spouting lies about what the Bible means (says), instead of attempting to get to the truth behind its figurative language. You have become a Satan to God. You are your own devil. You have become (by the Bible definition) "a Fool" and you have debated this thread foolishly thinking yourself to be wise. Have I met my match with you on Biblical matters? No!

    I hope some of our new members might have contributed their thoughts on this subject that might have helped us come to a conclusion. Again, another thread and subject that fails to reach an agreed conclusion on the matter. There are many more paradoxes brought up accusing the Bible of being contradictory. Almost all of the cited contradictions can be explained away, leaving very few contradictions in the Bible to remain to be solved. I shall not be going there with you to resolve any more paradoxes.


    Despite all that criticism of you, I wish you all the best.

    David

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •