On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:40:13 -0500 James_Taggart@multilink.com writes:
>
> You missed my point. I don't want to argue the literal meaning of a
> biblical translation. The point is that there are numerous instances of
miracles in the
> Bible that lend themselves to natural explanation.
I appreciate what you are saying, but again I say that in order to draw a
natural explanation we often must compromise the words of the scripture.
I personally know of no natural explanation that can provide a "wall of
water" on the right and left. Sure a wind can blow all of a shallow
lake's water to one end of a lake, or expose a shallow ridge across the
Red Sea, but those explanations do nothing to explain two opposing
"walls" of water.
The rabid atheist will seize upon any compromise and ram it right through
the entire Bible, which was my point with Glenn. Clarence Darrow used
this argument with William Jennings Bryan (during the Scopes Trial), who
(as I recall) fumbled over the question of the age of the earth and where
did Cain get his wife? Once Darrow exposed the weakness in Bryan's
fundamental beliefs, he skewered Bryan. Bryan died a few days later in
humiliation.
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 22:53:24 EST