 | | Re: Why not Both? —Tim Culberson
|
| | | (...) No, I certainly might be wrong. I refuse to admit that the Bible might be wrong. (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Which Bible, exactly? You're aware, I expect, the so-called original texts have been translated and copied and edited and excerpted and altered and reinterpreted and re-translated and re-copied over and over and over again?What makes you think (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why not Both? —James Brown
|
| | | | | (...) Thanks for falling into the logic trap. Given: You are not infallable Statement: You state the bible is not wrong. Conclusion: The Bible might be wrong. Pretty basic logic algorithm. James (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Wow. You really ARE missing the point. One last chance, and that's all. You claim that the Bible is right. You admit that you may be wrong. Therefore, the Bible may be wrong. And quite frankly, I don't care if you think the Bible is right. I (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
