Re: The Flood Hoax

From: John Burgeson (
Date: Mon Jul 29 2002 - 18:35:43 EDT

  • Next message: Jay Willingham: "Re: deception in perception"

    >>Sure _ & you can also argue that there were originally two blind men
    instead of one in Mk.10:46-52 so that it agrees with Mt.20:29-34. Anything
    can be harmonized with anything in this way, at the cost of rewriting the

    I don't think I implied I thought that was a good answer to the statement
    you made. It is surely "ad hoc." None the less my KJV only friends see
    explanations such as this as a "defense" of scriptural inerrancy. You should
    see how they reconcile the numeric discrepancies I cited a few weeks ago.


    (Ipsius sunt tempora)

    Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 29 2002 - 21:18:19 EDT