Subject:
|
Re: God's Nature
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:25:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
572 times
|
| |
|
|
You’re so far gone, there is no way to reply to that. No matter what I might
state next you will insist that you can “interpret” the Bible in such a way as
to reveal either an error in it, or in my interpretation of it.
Everyone get that? The Bible means whatever John Neal says it means.
The language is fairly straight-forward there, John. Are you going to claim a
translatory error? I am all ears. This claim that you know what it means over
and above its obvious meaning is a little over the top for this forum.
Again:
“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young
and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.”
Funny that repitition too, where it keeps highlighting that point again and
again -- how every man, woman, child, and beast was destroyed.
I guess that’s God’s love for ya...
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: God's Nature
|
| (...) Blinkered Bigot! The Bible is not a factual document; it is a book of faith! (...) Hypocrite! Everyone get that? The Bible means whatever (the atheist) Richard Marchetti says it means. (...) The Bible, especially the OT, is anything but (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | God's Nature
|
| (...) You are kidding, right? (...) Hmmm. So you are telling me that you know that exact nature of God? (...) That they perceived God was and whether God actually was are 2 very different things. (...) What are you implying here? That you understand (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
