Re: Accuracy of the Bible

From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:40:34 EDT

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: Did Peter walk on water?"

    Fair enough, Jan. You are jso far ahead of anything within my
    experience, that I
    cannot follow it --- let alone judge validity or debate anything.. You need an
    audience that is more astute in those fields than I am.

    Respectfully,

    Walt

    jan@dekoning.ca wrote:

    > Walter,
    > Sorry, but as you do not want to become engaged in debates using history,
    > including history of philology and history of philosophy, which includes
    > history of mathematics, physics as well, there is no sense in starting a
    > discussion again. I referred in the past to a long report signed by me and
    > 8 other scientists, theologians and philosophers. It is published in the
    > 1991 Acts of Synod of the Christian Reformed Church. Also, I would be
    > repeating myself, since I explained it many times already on this forum. It
    > is time-consuming, and I do not have the time to do it in a way which the
    > subject deserves. I only want to point out that I have not heard any
    > convincing arguments against what we said in 1991.
    >
    > Jan

    --
    ===================================
    Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
    

    In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)

    You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 14:45:23 EDT