Posted on 02/20/2006 5:33:50 AM PST by ToryHeartland
I was merely responding to those who claim that my request for further documentation was specious
I guess I must have missed the request for further documentation. Assuming so, my apologies.
I suppose if I stated that the earth was created in six 24 hour days and pointed you to the Bible as the source for that allegation, that you would accept it?
This is misdirection. You objected to RWP's citation because it was a book, which is beyond laughable.
Or if I provided a link to a Henry Morris book, you would be satisfied? Or would you question the source?
I might well question the source, but I would have no doubt that you had done your scholarly duty regarding citation.
Are you under the impression that New York Reform Jews inhabited the Holy Lands when Jesus was roaming around it?
You're being unduly conservative. Make the thickness equal to 0.225352 cubits, and you can have the inner circumference exactly 30 cubits.
So, since we're fudging, make the day equal to a few billion years, and Genesis won't conflict nearly so badly with science.
I objected to it because it was a general reference to a book which may or may not have contained the specific reference.
Your accusation comes awfully close to being a lie. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time, but now you are sitting on two strikes.
Goodness, well, let me first of all apologize for my untimely apology. Perhaps we should have scorecards. I'd just like to issue a permanent blanket apology for every mis-statement I may make. Since I can't seem to shut up, I expect I'll make plenty more. ;)
I fail to see how referencing a list of out-of-context or -- in some cases -- fabricated quotes supports your claim. Perhaps you could reference a single quote wherein a biologist made the specific claim that you allege?
So, in other words, a jew is condemned to hell unless he violates the pieces of his orthodox teaching he holds to be fundamental: the shema and the 1st Commandment, by accepting christ as savior.
Not if you are donh
A task that only C types can do.....
Does this apply to MY request as well?
Will it apply to things you HAVE said?
Well, since he has no temple in which to do sacrifice; it's REALLY hard to follow the Lord's commands; isn't it!
It is reasonable to assume that a 10 cubit molten metal bowl would have a thickness of about a hand, which would be the perfect measuring distance if you were going to build a mold.
So I am simply using the measurment standards in existence at the time of the building of Solomon's Temple. And since a cubit is not an exact measurement but is an approximate measurement, how many cubits would you have if if you rounded the 29.85 cubits to the nearest cubit?
No.
You slandered me, and when I asked you to merely verify your opinion, which is the bone of contention, you refused to answer. Do you disavow the handing down of the laws to the judges in genesis or not? Do you oppose Rowe v. Wade on grounds of christian morality or not? It's your opinion, do you know what your opinion is, or not?
Why don't you break precedent and answer a simple question once in a while? Are orthodox jews damned because they cannot acknowledge jesus is savior with violating their basic beliefs as orthodox jews? Is that why you just caughed up an acre of anti-jewish spewings from the Gospels, or not?
Not if you are donh
Huhhh? What?
I objected to it because it was a general reference to a book which may or may not have contained the specific reference.
Very well, apparently I made the mistaken assumption that you were objecting to it because it was a book, since that's what it looked like. Let me just apologize profusely.
Your accusation comes awfully close to being a lie. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time, but now you are sitting on two strikes.
Oh, sit on it. I've catered to this pasty-faced hyper-sensitivity quite enough. Does God know what a bunch of whining sissies he's got in His cheering section?
No. I am confused by your question.
You can probably pick up the thread of discussion at post #1935
This is misdirection. You objected to RWP's citation because it was a book, which is beyond laughable.
Or if I provided a link to a Henry Morris book, you would be satisfied? Or would you question the source?
So,...who, exactly, in this exchange, is it that appears to be covering his heiny with a little after-the-fact two-stepping?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.