There's no need to go into never ending letter mode Nick if you do send a reply, but I was wondering? Going right back to your last letter writing flurry a year ago or more, with all of those past posts of yours you never did seem to get your head around the fact that you cant use the bible as proof of the words in the bible.
Now In this current flurry you're still showing signs that your position on this hasn't changed, this approach of yours seems totally illogical Nick.
It's a bit worrying to think you seem to be totally unable to grasp this concept that you can't in fact use the bible to prove the bible, it's just plain daft to even try to do this Nick, is there anything you can do about this blind spot of yours?
ippy.
I've seen your reply to my post Nick, but what has that got to do with my original post to you about where it's plain daft to think that the bible can stand as proof that the bible is all based on facts?
Anyway I'll paste that original post here for you below and perhaps you could reply to that one as your last post to me must have been intended for someone else:
There's no need to go into never ending letter mode Nick if you do send a reply, but I was wondering? Going right back to your last letter writing flurry a year ago or more, with all of those past posts of yours you never did seem to get your head around the fact that you cant use the bible as proof of the words in the bible.
Now In this current flurry you're still showing signs that your position on this hasn't changed, this approach of yours seems totally illogical Nick.
It's a bit worrying to think you seem to be totally unable to grasp this concept that you can't in fact use the bible to prove the bible, it's just plain daft to even try to do this Nick, is there anything you can do about this blind spot of yours?
ippy.