Re: The Flood Hoax

From: Jim Eisele (jeisele@starpower.net)
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 16:16:34 EDT

Next message: John W Burgeson: ":-)"

Previous message: Iain Strachan: "Re: KJV translation (Was Re: The Flood Hoax)"
Maybe in reply to: John Burgeson: "Re: The Flood Hoax"
Next in thread: Walter Hicks: "Re: The Flood Hoax"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

John writes

>1. Believe the flood happened
>2. Deny the flood happened
>3. Willing to consider both possibilities

>I take position 3.

The idea of a false flood account is sheer nonsense.
You may as well just pitch the entire OT. Such a view is
not "enlightened", it is naive.

My post was originally much longer, but "there ain't no
point in talking if nobody's listening."

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

Next message: John W Burgeson: ":-)"
Previous message: Iain Strachan: "Re: KJV translation (Was Re: The Flood Hoax)"
Maybe in reply to: John Burgeson: "Re: The Flood Hoax"
Next in thread: Walter Hicks: "Re: The Flood Hoax"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 18 2002 - 22:24:11 EDT