I agree with the sentiments expressed in your closing sentence, but don't you
regard it as a peculiar inversion of Luke 16:29-31 when one who believes in the
Lord's Resurrection denies the truths contained in the early writings of Moses?
Concerning 'apparent age', I have shown it to be the inevitable consequence of
certain types of miracle - including the miracle of creation. Perhaps you would
elaborate on your view that my argument in respect of this matter is
Finally, the 'fanciful numerics' you refer to are actually 'hard facts' - as
anyone prepared to spend a little time on my site will confirm. Perhaps you
missed some of the earlier postings concerning, for example, the derivation of
accurate values for the two primary universal constants, 'pi' and 'e' from the
first verses of Genesis and John's Gospel, respectively. Please write if you
would like me to direct you to the appropriate pages.
Michael Roberts wrote:
> The simplest answer to the apparent age argument is that it makes God a
> Phillip Gosse and Chateaubriand put it forward in 1857 and c 1802 and it was
> a lead balloon.
> I am sorry Vernon but Ilose patience with this type of decietful argument
> not to mention fanciful numerics.
> Let's get back to Jesus who died and rose for us , thst is simpler and the
> heart of the gospel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 27 2002 - 22:37:48 EDT