Blood, Water and Magicians (1b)

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

>>Greg Mills

>>

>>After all the water was changed into blood and before the magicians did

>>likewise, God changed it back into water.  This action was not important

to

>>the point of the story and therefore it was not recorded.  The same thing

>>can be said about the cattle.  It is not logically impossible for an event

>>to happen and not be recorded.  Besides we know if the magicians changed

it

>>all into blood then God had to have changed it back and to say so would

then

>>be redundant.

>>

>

>TILL

>I know you're being facetious, Greg, but in case any inerrantists on the

>list should think you have a good solution to the problem, I will point out

>to them that your line of reasoning attempts to prove inerrancy by assuming

>inerrancy. Grant me the right to assume the inerrancy of a text, and I will

>have no problem at all proving that it is inerrant.  In fact, if this right

>is conceded in advance, there would be no need to debate whether the text

is

>inerrant.

>



GREG MILLS

I guess you do remember me!  However is it really assuming inerrancy?  It is
assuming omnipotence, but not inerrancy.  That last sentence may be assuming
inerrancy, but just take it out and you are back to omnipotence.  Didn't you
grant that? It could have happened that way without being logically
impossible and without assuming inerrancy couldn't it?

Lest anyone misunderstand (e.g. BACH) I am an atheist all the way and think
the bible is full of absurdities, contradictions, historical errors, etc.
And I was being facetious, but now that I think about it, it wasn't all that
bad.  Help me Farrell!

• Previous message: Blood, Water and Magicians (1b)
• Next message: Blood, Water and Magicians (1b)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]