Dark/light END IT!!

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 02:47 PM 12/9/98 -0800, you wrote:

>Still unconvinced, Joe Alward writes:

>Till apparently believes that I'm focusing on the word "dark", when I'm

>actually much more interested in the word "yet".  

>

<<<SNIP>>>>

>Ray: I can't stand this so I will take the time to teach you something

>about light. I was well paid to know this suff incidentally and it is

>not idle speculation (well maybe it is idle but it is still factual).

>

<<<<SNIP very thorough discussion of stages of dawn>>>>>

>Regards, Ray

>


Hesus Christo folks!!

Has this crap not gone on long enough?

After a very thorough and clear debunking of the apologists' "old saw" of resorting to the "original Greek" (thanks, Nancy), Joe still persists in his perfunctory invectives.  Let me suggest that if Ray's well thought out post does not assuage Joe's curiosity, then we should all ask "why?"

I would suggest that this type of posting is the epitome of someone with ulterior motives?  Let's say that I wanted to tie up bandwidth and peoples time.  What would I do.  Perhaps post a question and KEEP HARPING ON IT even after it was thoroughly BEAT TO DEATH.  What better way to keep people from moving on to other topics.

I hope that this is the last we see of this dark/dusk/dawn/"almost but not quite maybe light" crap!

Carl Geisik

• Previous message: FWD [abe]: THE RESURRECTION DEBATE (2)
• Next message: Dark/light END IT!!
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]