Re: Snoke's response

From: janice matchett <>
Date: Sat Aug 13 2005 - 17:24:12 EDT

At 03:25 PM 8/13/2005, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>janice matchett wrote:
>>At 12:18 PM 8/13/2005, Gregory Arago wrote:
>>>"..... neither am I am trained in theology ....."
>>#1# You, and how many others? :) Yet many of the *untrained*
>>nevertheless *voice opinions on the subject* which they inexplicably
>>expect to be embraced as carrying equal weight with the opinions of
>>(small "o" ) orthodox biblical scholars. That is a major point that many
>>seem to overlook. These presumptuous *biblical illiterates *"...Do Not
>>Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt "*
>Does this mean that those untrained in science who nevertheless voice
>opinions on the subject do not deserve the benefit of the doubt either?

#2# Yes. YEC's are a good example.

>The article by Holding seems to reject opinions of others if they disagree
>with dogmatic interpretations. And yet we know that there are countless
>varying interpretations of God's Word. I find the article represents a
>very anti-Christian position imho of course.

#2# One man saw another sitting at the table with a Bible, pen in hand. He
was using the pen to make a series of horizontal lines in the Bible's text.

"Underlining your favorite verses?" the first man asked
cheerfully. "Nope," the man with the pen replied. "I'm crossing out the
parts that don't apply to me!"

New Testament
Old Testament:

A quiz for skeptics:

>But I did find the following commentary ironically interesting
>[quote] We may have more to add to this at a later date, but it's enough
>for now to settle with this conclusion: Don't take any critic's word in an
>age when any person with typing skills can post a website claiming just
>about anything. Chances are they haven't done a fraction of the homework
>they need to do to be a reputable commentator.[/quote]

#2# If you choose to take the statement out of the context of the rest of
the commentary (which backs it up), along with the liinks, etc., I can see
why some might erroneously conclude it is an "ironic" conclusion.

~ Janice
Received on Sat Aug 13 17:26:17 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 13 2005 - 17:26:18 EDT