Hi John,
I'm sorry you feel aggrieved, but let me assure you that I am not in the
business of insulting others. I rather seek to draw attention to certain
warnings that appear in the Scriptures. And while each of us is free to
proceed by his/her own conscience, it is surely wise that we make
ourselves fully aware of the potential risks associated with the taking
of a particular stance in this debate.
I am intrigued to know what is 'silly' about 2Peter 3:16?
Regards,
Vernon
John W Burgeson wrote:
>
> Vernan wrote:
>
> "In 2Pet.3:16 the Apostle issues a dire warning to those who, to satisfy
> their own agendas, 'wrest' the scriptures. Gordon, if you (and others)
> insist on the Flood being local, then - duck and dive as you will - you
> cannot avoid the charge that you are guilty of manipulating God's Word."
>
> Vernon -- once you asked me why I (and others) did not take your
> claims made here more seriously.
>
> The above exerpt from your recent post is one reason.
>
> Not only is it silly, it is uncivil in the extreme. More than
> that -- it exhibits hubris which turns people away from
> anything else you might say. To insist that
> everyone must interpret scripture exactly as you do
> is to "play god."
>
> I do not "insist" that the flood was local, but that seems to be
> the most reasonable position. I see no conflict between that
> position and a high view of scripture. Perhaps there
> is a conflict -- but to insist that I, and Gordon, and many
> others who hold the local flood position are manipulating
> scripture is an insult.
>
> Burgy
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 17 2001 - 18:38:07 EST