bornagainathiest Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 This will be the tenth (10th) time I've put this question to you, Ironhorse. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. It's been fifty nine (59) days since I first put this to you...so please answer the question before it's 2017, so that I don't have to copy it fifty nine times! It's been ninety eight (98) days since I first put this question to you and you didn't answer it in 2017. If you have nothing to fear, nothing to hide and nothing to lose, please answer this simple question. Thanks, BAA. (Bump!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 A copy of the above post has just been PMed directly to Ironhorse's Inbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted February 6, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted February 6, 2017 Welcome back, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted February 6, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted February 6, 2017 Aye, aye, Welcome back BAA. A quick update, IH has not been seen since 25th January after posting about Trump in the Israel thread. It appears he gave 3 quick answers in this thread to me, but since being challenged about the assumptions in his answers has not replied. Possibly my questions to him are unclear so will attempt a rephrase, I admit to having to figure out what I am getting at myself sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 This (from another thread) is relevant here. Posted Today, 10:18 AM My sincere thanks go out to those members who wished me well and offered me help and support in my recent days of difficulty. You know who you are and by way of thanks I'd now like to affirm that I'd do the same for you, if the need arose. Imho, the word 'family' can mean more than blood and kin. It can also refer to people who are physically separated, but linked and joined in other deeply meaningful ways. My family of Ex-Christians in this forum are proof of that. Thanks again, BAA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Welcome back BAA! I hope things are going OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 BAA, I didn't know you were having any difficulty. I don't swing through the Den too much these days and must have missed a post somewhere. I did notice you weren't posting, but I figured you were on vacation or something. I hope whatever you went through was resolved favorably to you. All the best! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 What's the subject today. Lack of congruency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted February 8, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted February 8, 2017 Hi End The subject is getting IH to answer my queries below, as well as BAA's which are now outstanding for over 100 days! (See BAA's post #126) I read the other day concerning BAA's leave of absence. This has been in my thoughts. Looking forward to his return. Now to these questions... Ironhorse please respond to the following questions: 1) Do you stand by your statement in relation to repopulation after the flood: "I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone" in light of my evidence that Noah's Son's Son's and Daughters were immediate family and thus even after the flood incest wasn't "long gone"? I stand by that view. I not going to claim how I view these passages is the absolute truth. 2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as previously discussed (see post #86)? First: “Your entire salvation depends on how well you 'guess' Ironhorse.” No, salvation is in Christ, not how well I think or guess about God. See my answer to your first question. My answer has nothing to do with my salvation. How would it fit in evolutionary theory? I have no idea. 3) In light of the obvious conflicts with incest, and evolutionary theory, do you not think that both the creation and flood stories are myth/fables or metaphorical? I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures. We can go around and around on what literary devices that might or might be at play in the story, but it does not change the main message of the text. Ironhorse, thank you for answering after some 84 days. Better late than never. However, given the time I would have expected a more robust answer as you do seem capable of doing so. Let us go back to the beginning: My three questions above resulted from this assertion from your post #49: I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone.This was in relation to Noah's flood. I have clearly demonstrated that incest abounded in Noah's day based on biblical information, but per your answer to question 1, you stand by your statement/view that it was long gone despite that I have shown your view is demonstrably false. Question 4) If you wish to stand by your view that incest was "long gone" by what mechanism do you propose that the humans repopulated? Regarding question 2, according to you, salvation is in Christ, that came to save us from original sin, and who was of the line of Adam. If evolutionary theory is true, then Jesus was not of the line of Adam, and the entire reason and plan of salvation fails, so your view on these subjects is of utmost importance. Unless you can do some amazing mental gymnastics and do some whirly twirl interpretation of the bible. Question 5) Do you accept evolutionary theory? (Human descended from primates over millions of years) This ties into my question 5 above. Regarding question 3 in the top quote, where I was asking if you thought the Genesis stories are myths or metaphorical you answered "I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures." So by this I am understanding you are taking the biblical accounts of creation and Noah's flood literally? If this is the case then: Question 6) Can you confirm whether you are a young earth creationist, or an Old earth creationist? We are at 15 days and counting. Please answer. Thanks LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 This will be the tenth (10th) time I've put this question to you, Ironhorse. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. It's been fifty nine (59) days since I first put this to you...so please answer the question before it's 2017, so that I don't have to copy it fifty nine times! It's been ninety eight (98) days since I first put this question to you and you didn't answer it in 2017. If you have nothing to fear, nothing to hide and nothing to lose, please answer this simple question. Thanks, BAA. (Bump!) (Re-bump!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 A copy of the above post has just been PMed directly to Ironhorse's Inbox. I patiently await his reply here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted February 13, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted February 13, 2017 Hi End The subject is getting IH to answer my queries below, as well as BAA's which are now outstanding for over 100 days! (See BAA's post #126) I read the other day concerning BAA's leave of absence. This has been in my thoughts. Looking forward to his return. Now to these questions... Ironhorse please respond to the following questions: 1) Do you stand by your statement in relation to repopulation after the flood: "I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone" in light of my evidence that Noah's Son's Son's and Daughters were immediate family and thus even after the flood incest wasn't "long gone"? I stand by that view. I not going to claim how I view these passages is the absolute truth. 2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as previously discussed (see post #86)? First: “Your entire salvation depends on how well you 'guess' Ironhorse.” No, salvation is in Christ, not how well I think or guess about God. See my answer to your first question. My answer has nothing to do with my salvation. How would it fit in evolutionary theory? I have no idea. 3) In light of the obvious conflicts with incest, and evolutionary theory, do you not think that both the creation and flood stories are myth/fables or metaphorical? I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures. We can go around and around on what literary devices that might or might be at play in the story, but it does not change the main message of the text. Ironhorse, thank you for answering after some 84 days. Better late than never. However, given the time I would have expected a more robust answer as you do seem capable of doing so. Let us go back to the beginning: My three questions above resulted from this assertion from your post #49: I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone.This was in relation to Noah's flood. I have clearly demonstrated that incest abounded in Noah's day based on biblical information, but per your answer to question 1, you stand by your statement/view that it was long gone despite that I have shown your view is demonstrably false. Question 4) If you wish to stand by your view that incest was "long gone" by what mechanism do you propose that the humans repopulated? Regarding question 2, according to you, salvation is in Christ, that came to save us from original sin, and who was of the line of Adam. If evolutionary theory is true, then Jesus was not of the line of Adam, and the entire reason and plan of salvation fails, so your view on these subjects is of utmost importance. Unless you can do some amazing mental gymnastics and do some whirly twirl interpretation of the bible. Question 5) Do you accept evolutionary theory? (Human descended from primates over millions of years) This ties into my question 5 above. Regarding question 3 in the top quote, where I was asking if you thought the Genesis stories are myths or metaphorical you answered "I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures." So by this I am understanding you are taking the biblical accounts of creation and Noah's flood literally? If this is the case then: Question 6) Can you confirm whether you are a young earth creationist, or an Old earth creationist? We are at 15 days and counting. Please answer. Thanks LF Snap again BAA - it occurred to me I hadn't bumped this for a bit, come here and you have bumped. We are in sync... its a sign.. of something... Bump. IH It is now 20 days and no reply. Please address my questions 4,5 & 6 in BOLD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted February 23, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2017 On 2/9/2017 at 10:18 AM, LogicalFallacy said: On 1/25/2017 at 1:58 AM, ironhorse said: Ironhorse please respond to the following questions: 1) Do you stand by your statement in relation to repopulation after the flood: "I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone" in light of my evidence that Noah's Son's Son's and Daughters were immediate family and thus even after the flood incest wasn't "long gone"? I stand by that view. I not going to claim how I view these passages is the absolute truth. 2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as previously discussed (see post #86)? First: “Your entire salvation depends on how well you 'guess' Ironhorse.” No, salvation is in Christ, not how well I think or guess about God. See my answer to your first question. My answer has nothing to do with my salvation. How would it fit in evolutionary theory? I have no idea. 3) In light of the obvious conflicts with incest, and evolutionary theory, do you not think that both the creation and flood stories are myth/fables or metaphorical? I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures. We can go around and around on what literary devices that might or might be at play in the story, but it does not change the main message of the text. Ironhorse, thank you for answering after some 84 days. Better late than never. However, given the time I would have expected a more robust answer as you do seem capable of doing so. Let us go back to the beginning: My three questions above resulted from this assertion from your post #49: Ironhorse said: I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone. This was in relation to Noah's flood. I have clearly demonstrated that incest abounded in Noah's day based on biblical information, but per your answer to question 1, you stand by your statement/view that it was long gone despite that I have shown your view is demonstrably false. Question 4) If you wish to stand by your view that incest was "long gone" by what mechanism do you propose that the humans repopulated? Regarding question 2, according to you, salvation is in Christ, that came to save us from original sin, and who was of the line of Adam. If evolutionary theory is true, then Jesus was not of the line of Adam, and the entire reason and plan of salvation fails, so your view on these subjects is of utmost importance. Unless you can do some amazing mental gymnastics and do some whirly twirl interpretation of the bible. Question 5) Do you accept evolutionary theory? (Human descended from primates over millions of years) This ties into my question 5 above. Regarding question 3 in the top quote, where I was asking if you thought the Genesis stories are myths or metaphorical you answered "I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures." So by this I am understanding you are taking the biblical accounts of creation and Noah's flood literally? If this is the case then: Question 6) Can you confirm whether you are a young earth creationist, or an Old earth creationist? We are at 15 days and counting. Please answer. Thanks LF Quote Snap again BAA - it occurred to me I hadn't bumped this for a bit, come here and you have bumped. We are in sync... its a sign.. of something... Bump. IH It is now 20 days and no reply. Please address my questions 4,5 & 6 in BLUE Well I think its time for a ... Bump! Ick... you have to copy a post with multiple stacked quotes in order to get it to stack... ick Meanwhile BAA if you read this the preview button is at top right of the formatting menu. I noted that you were bemoaning the lack of a preview in an earlier post. And much ick! The source code is horrible - can we BB code it now? I want to put something in a quote block but its ignoring my commands! No wait, its not ignoring... but its not doing it right. Too bad I'm posting. Its time for bed! PS.. I think I fiddled and poked around until I fixed it. Whoo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Posted February 13 · Report post On 2/6/2017 at 3:29 PM, bornagainathiest said: On 12/29/2016 at 6:33 PM, bornagainathiest said: This will be the tenth (10th) time I've put this question to you, Ironhorse. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. It's been fifty nine (59) days since I first put this to you...so please answer the question before it's 2017, so that I don't have to copy it fifty nine times! It's been ninety eight (98) days since I first put this question to you and you didn't answer it in 2017. If you have nothing to fear, nothing to hide and nothing to lose, please answer this simple question. Thanks, BAA. (Bump!) (Re-bump!) Re-re-bump! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 A copy of the above post has just been PMed directly to Ironhorse's Inbox. I patiently await his reply here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted March 6, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted March 6, 2017 On 2/23/2017 at 11:17 PM, LogicalFallacy said: On 2/9/2017 at 10:18 AM, LogicalFallacy said: On 1/25/2017 at 1:58 AM, ironhorse said: Ironhorse please respond to the following questions: 1) Do you stand by your statement in relation to repopulation after the flood: "I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone" in light of my evidence that Noah's Son's Son's and Daughters were immediate family and thus even after the flood incest wasn't "long gone"? I stand by that view. I not going to claim how I view these passages is the absolute truth. 2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as previously discussed (see post #86)? First: “Your entire salvation depends on how well you 'guess' Ironhorse.” No, salvation is in Christ, not how well I think or guess about God. See my answer to your first question. My answer has nothing to do with my salvation. How would it fit in evolutionary theory? I have no idea. 3) In light of the obvious conflicts with incest, and evolutionary theory, do you not think that both the creation and flood stories are myth/fables or metaphorical? I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures. We can go around and around on what literary devices that might or might be at play in the story, but it does not change the main message of the text. Ironhorse, thank you for answering after some 84 days. Better late than never. However, given the time I would have expected a more robust answer as you do seem capable of doing so. Let us go back to the beginning: My three questions above resulted from this assertion from your post #49: Ironhorse said: I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone. This was in relation to Noah's flood. I have clearly demonstrated that incest abounded in Noah's day based on biblical information, but per your answer to question 1, you stand by your statement/view that it was long gone despite that I have shown your view is demonstrably false. Question 4) If you wish to stand by your view that incest was "long gone" by what mechanism do you propose that the humans repopulated? Regarding question 2, according to you, salvation is in Christ, that came to save us from original sin, and who was of the line of Adam. If evolutionary theory is true, then Jesus was not of the line of Adam, and the entire reason and plan of salvation fails, so your view on these subjects is of utmost importance. Unless you can do some amazing mental gymnastics and do some whirly twirl interpretation of the bible. Question 5) Do you accept evolutionary theory? (Human descended from primates over millions of years) This ties into my question 5 above. Regarding question 3 in the top quote, where I was asking if you thought the Genesis stories are myths or metaphorical you answered "I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures." So by this I am understanding you are taking the biblical accounts of creation and Noah's flood literally? If this is the case then: Question 6) Can you confirm whether you are a young earth creationist, or an Old earth creationist? We are at 15 days and counting. Please answer. Thanks LF Quote Snap again BAA - it occurred to me I hadn't bumped this for a bit, come here and you have bumped. We are in sync... its a sign.. of something... Bump. IH It is now 20 days and no reply. Please address my questions 4,5 & 6 in BLUE Well I think its time for a ... Bump! Ironhorse I see you are active at the moment (6-3-17, 4:18 UTC) . Please address questions 4, 5 and 6 in the quoted portion above. Thanks LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 Posted February 25 · Report post Posted February 13 · Report post On 2/25/2017 at 0:30 PM, bornagainathiest said: Posted February 13 · Report post Posted February 25 · Report post Posted February 13 · Report post On 2/6/2017 at 3:29 PM, bornagainathiest said: On 12/29/2016 at 6:33 PM, bornagainathiest said: This will be the tenth (10th) time I've put this question to you, Ironhorse. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. It's been fifty nine (59) days since I first put this to you...so please answer the question before it's 2017, so that I don't have to copy it fifty nine times! It's been ninety eight (98) days since I first put this question to you and you didn't answer it in 2017. If you have nothing to fear, nothing to hide and nothing to lose, please answer this simple question. Thanks, BAA. (Bump!) (Re-bump!) Re-re-bump! (Re-bump!) Re-re-bump! It's now been 143 days since I first put this question to you Ironhorse and you ARE active in the den, so please answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 A copy of the above post has just been PMed directly to Ironhorse's Inbox. I patiently await his reply here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 A copy of the above post has just been PMed directly to Ironhorse's Inbox. I patiently await his reply here. (I shouted the message using the 'loudest' font size I could manage. 72.) Ironhorse, were you ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted March 17, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted March 17, 2017 On 3/6/2017 at 5:18 PM, LogicalFallacy said: On 2/23/2017 at 11:17 PM, LogicalFallacy said: On 2/9/2017 at 10:18 AM, LogicalFallacy said: On 1/25/2017 at 1:58 AM, ironhorse said: Ironhorse please respond to the following questions: 1) Do you stand by your statement in relation to repopulation after the flood: "I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone" in light of my evidence that Noah's Son's Son's and Daughters were immediate family and thus even after the flood incest wasn't "long gone"? I stand by that view. I not going to claim how I view these passages is the absolute truth. 2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as previously discussed (see post #86)? First: “Your entire salvation depends on how well you 'guess' Ironhorse.” No, salvation is in Christ, not how well I think or guess about God. See my answer to your first question. My answer has nothing to do with my salvation. How would it fit in evolutionary theory? I have no idea. 3) In light of the obvious conflicts with incest, and evolutionary theory, do you not think that both the creation and flood stories are myth/fables or metaphorical? I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures. We can go around and around on what literary devices that might or might be at play in the story, but it does not change the main message of the text. Ironhorse, thank you for answering after some 84 days. Better late than never. However, given the time I would have expected a more robust answer as you do seem capable of doing so. Let us go back to the beginning: My three questions above resulted from this assertion from your post #49: Ironhorse said: I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone. This was in relation to Noah's flood. I have clearly demonstrated that incest abounded in Noah's day based on biblical information, but per your answer to question 1, you stand by your statement/view that it was long gone despite that I have shown your view is demonstrably false. Question 4) If you wish to stand by your view that incest was "long gone" by what mechanism do you propose that the humans repopulated? Regarding question 2, according to you, salvation is in Christ, that came to save us from original sin, and who was of the line of Adam. If evolutionary theory is true, then Jesus was not of the line of Adam, and the entire reason and plan of salvation fails, so your view on these subjects is of utmost importance. Unless you can do some amazing mental gymnastics and do some whirly twirl interpretation of the bible. Question 5) Do you accept evolutionary theory? (Human descended from primates over millions of years) This ties into my question 5 above. Regarding question 3 in the top quote, where I was asking if you thought the Genesis stories are myths or metaphorical you answered "I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures." So by this I am understanding you are taking the biblical accounts of creation and Noah's flood literally? If this is the case then: Question 6) Can you confirm whether you are a young earth creationist, or an Old earth creationist? We are at 15 days and counting. Please answer. Thanks LF Quote Snap again BAA - it occurred to me I hadn't bumped this for a bit, come here and you have bumped. We are in sync... its a sign.. of something... Bump. IH It is now 20 days and no reply. Please address my questions 4,5 & 6 in BLUE Well I think its time for a ... Bump! Ironhorse I see you are active at the moment (6-3-17, 4:18 UTC) . Please address questions 4, 5 and 6 in the quoted portion above. Thanks LF Here we go again. Ironhorse we haven't finished our conversation. Please answer questions in blue above.... before I go blue in the face from waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 6 · Report post Posted February 25 · Report post Posted February 13 · Report post On 25/02/2017 at 0:30 PM, bornagainathiest said: Posted February 13 · Report post Posted February 25 · Report post Posted February 13 · Report post On 06/02/2017 at 3:29 PM, bornagainathiest said: On 29/12/2016 at 6:33 PM, bornagainathiest said: This will be the tenth (10th) time I've put this question to you, Ironhorse. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...? Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc. The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed. It's been fifty nine (59) days since I first put this to you...so please answer the question before it's 2017, so that I don't have to copy it fifty nine times! It's been ninety eight (98) days since I first put this question to you and you didn't answer it in 2017. If you have nothing to fear, nothing to hide and nothing to lose, please answer this simple question. Thanks, BAA. (Bump!) (Re-bump!) Re-re-bump! (Re-bump!) Re-re-bump! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another copy of this message has just been posted to Ironhorse's Inbox. I patiently await his reply here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted March 25, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted March 25, 2017 On 3/18/2017 at 0:54 AM, LogicalFallacy said: On 3/6/2017 at 5:18 PM, LogicalFallacy said: On 2/23/2017 at 11:17 PM, LogicalFallacy said: On 2/9/2017 at 10:18 AM, LogicalFallacy said: On 1/25/2017 at 1:58 AM, ironhorse said: Ironhorse please respond to the following questions: 1) Do you stand by your statement in relation to repopulation after the flood: "I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone" in light of my evidence that Noah's Son's Son's and Daughters were immediate family and thus even after the flood incest wasn't "long gone"? I stand by that view. I not going to claim how I view these passages is the absolute truth. 2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as previously discussed (see post #86)? First: “Your entire salvation depends on how well you 'guess' Ironhorse.” No, salvation is in Christ, not how well I think or guess about God. See my answer to your first question. My answer has nothing to do with my salvation. How would it fit in evolutionary theory? I have no idea. 3) In light of the obvious conflicts with incest, and evolutionary theory, do you not think that both the creation and flood stories are myth/fables or metaphorical? I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures. We can go around and around on what literary devices that might or might be at play in the story, but it does not change the main message of the text. Ironhorse, thank you for answering after some 84 days. Better late than never. However, given the time I would have expected a more robust answer as you do seem capable of doing so. Let us go back to the beginning: My three questions above resulted from this assertion from your post #49: Ironhorse said: I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone. This was in relation to Noah's flood. I have clearly demonstrated that incest abounded in Noah's day based on biblical information, but per your answer to question 1, you stand by your statement/view that it was long gone despite that I have shown your view is demonstrably false. Question 4) If you wish to stand by your view that incest was "long gone" by what mechanism do you propose that the humans repopulated? Regarding question 2, according to you, salvation is in Christ, that came to save us from original sin, and who was of the line of Adam. If evolutionary theory is true, then Jesus was not of the line of Adam, and the entire reason and plan of salvation fails, so your view on these subjects is of utmost importance. Unless you can do some amazing mental gymnastics and do some whirly twirl interpretation of the bible. Question 5) Do you accept evolutionary theory? (Human descended from primates over millions of years) This ties into my question 5 above. Regarding question 3 in the top quote, where I was asking if you thought the Genesis stories are myths or metaphorical you answered "I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures." So by this I am understanding you are taking the biblical accounts of creation and Noah's flood literally? If this is the case then: Question 6) Can you confirm whether you are a young earth creationist, or an Old earth creationist? We are at 15 days and counting. Please answer. Thanks LF Quote Snap again BAA - it occurred to me I hadn't bumped this for a bit, come here and you have bumped. We are in sync... its a sign.. of something... Bump. IH It is now 20 days and no reply. Please address my questions 4,5 & 6 in BLUE Well I think its time for a ... Bump! Ironhorse I see you are active at the moment (6-3-17, 4:18 UTC) . Please address questions 4, 5 and 6 in the quoted portion above. Thanks LF Here we go again. Ironhorse we haven't finished our conversation. Please answer questions in blue above.... before I go blue in the face from waiting. Ironhorse next time you are able to post, please address my questions 4,5 and 6 in blue in the quoted portion I've lost count of days waiting for reply. And for goodness sake please answer BAA... the poor guy is hanging out for an answer! Might I note that there are a total of 4 questions outstanding combined of BAA and myself. None of them are particularly difficult, or require a long technical answer. I can probably safely assume that if you have read these requests and the posts that you have already answered them in your head within seconds. So do be honest and continue the discussion. Thanks LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted March 29, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted March 29, 2017 On 25/03/2017 at 9:47 PM, LogicalFallacy said: On 18/03/2017 at 0:54 AM, LogicalFallacy said: On 06/03/2017 at 5:18 PM, LogicalFallacy said: On 23/02/2017 at 11:17 PM, LogicalFallacy said: On 09/02/2017 at 10:18 AM, LogicalFallacy said: On 25/01/2017 at 1:58 AM, ironhorse said: Ironhorse please respond to the following questions: 1) Do you stand by your statement in relation to repopulation after the flood: "I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone" in light of my evidence that Noah's Son's Son's and Daughters were immediate family and thus even after the flood incest wasn't "long gone"? I stand by that view. I not going to claim how I view these passages is the absolute truth. 2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as previously discussed (see post #86)? First: “Your entire salvation depends on how well you 'guess' Ironhorse.” No, salvation is in Christ, not how well I think or guess about God. See my answer to your first question. My answer has nothing to do with my salvation. How would it fit in evolutionary theory? I have no idea. 3) In light of the obvious conflicts with incest, and evolutionary theory, do you not think that both the creation and flood stories are myth/fables or metaphorical? I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures. We can go around and around on what literary devices that might or might be at play in the story, but it does not change the main message of the text. Ironhorse, thank you for answering after some 84 days. Better late than never. However, given the time I would have expected a more robust answer as you do seem capable of doing so. Let us go back to the beginning: My three questions above resulted from this assertion from your post #49: Ironhorse said: I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone. This was in relation to Noah's flood. I have clearly demonstrated that incest abounded in Noah's day based on biblical information, but per your answer to question 1, you stand by your statement/view that it was long gone despite that I have shown your view is demonstrably false. Question 4) If you wish to stand by your view that incest was "long gone" by what mechanism do you propose that the humans repopulated? Regarding question 2, according to you, salvation is in Christ, that came to save us from original sin, and who was of the line of Adam. If evolutionary theory is true, then Jesus was not of the line of Adam, and the entire reason and plan of salvation fails, so your view on these subjects is of utmost importance. Unless you can do some amazing mental gymnastics and do some whirly twirl interpretation of the bible. Question 5) Do you accept evolutionary theory? (Human descended from primates over millions of years) This ties into my question 5 above. Regarding question 3 in the top quote, where I was asking if you thought the Genesis stories are myths or metaphorical you answered "I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures." So by this I am understanding you are taking the biblical accounts of creation and Noah's flood literally? If this is the case then: Question 6) Can you confirm whether you are a young earth creationist, or an Old earth creationist? We are at 15 days and counting. Please answer. Thanks LF Quote Snap again BAA - it occurred to me I hadn't bumped this for a bit, come here and you have bumped. We are in sync... its a sign.. of something... Bump. IH It is now 20 days and no reply. Please address my questions 4,5 & 6 in BLUE Well I think its time for a ... Bump! Ironhorse I see you are active at the moment (6-3-17, 4:18 UTC) . Please address questions 4, 5 and 6 in the quoted portion above. Thanks LF Here we go again. Ironhorse we haven't finished our conversation. Please answer questions in blue above.... before I go blue in the face from waiting. Ironhorse next time you are able to post, please address my questions 4,5 and 6 in blue in the quoted portion I've lost count of days waiting for reply. And for goodness sake please answer BAA... the poor guy is hanging out for an answer! Might I note that there are a total of 4 questions outstanding combined of BAA and myself. None of them are particularly difficult, or require a long technical answer. I can probably safely assume that if you have read these requests and the posts that you have already answered them in your head within seconds. So do be honest and continue the discussion. Thanks LF Bump for the umpteenth dozen time. Oh Ironhorse, the pipes the pipes are calling, from glen to glen, and down the mountain side.... Please answer or I'll end up like ol Danny Boy in the song before you reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted April 5, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted April 5, 2017 On 29/03/2017 at 3:08 PM, LogicalFallacy said: On 25/03/2017 at 9:47 PM, LogicalFallacy said: On 18/03/2017 at 0:54 AM, LogicalFallacy said: On 06/03/2017 at 5:18 PM, LogicalFallacy said: On 23/02/2017 at 11:17 PM, LogicalFallacy said: On 09/02/2017 at 10:18 AM, LogicalFallacy said: On 25/01/2017 at 1:58 AM, ironhorse said: Ironhorse please respond to the following questions: 1) Do you stand by your statement in relation to repopulation after the flood: "I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone" in light of my evidence that Noah's Son's Son's and Daughters were immediate family and thus even after the flood incest wasn't "long gone"? I stand by that view. I not going to claim how I view these passages is the absolute truth. 2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as previously discussed (see post #86)? First: “Your entire salvation depends on how well you 'guess' Ironhorse.” No, salvation is in Christ, not how well I think or guess about God. See my answer to your first question. My answer has nothing to do with my salvation. How would it fit in evolutionary theory? I have no idea. 3) In light of the obvious conflicts with incest, and evolutionary theory, do you not think that both the creation and flood stories are myth/fables or metaphorical? I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures. We can go around and around on what literary devices that might or might be at play in the story, but it does not change the main message of the text. Ironhorse, thank you for answering after some 84 days. Better late than never. However, given the time I would have expected a more robust answer as you do seem capable of doing so. Let us go back to the beginning: My three questions above resulted from this assertion from your post #49: Ironhorse said: I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone. This was in relation to Noah's flood. I have clearly demonstrated that incest abounded in Noah's day based on biblical information, but per your answer to question 1, you stand by your statement/view that it was long gone despite that I have shown your view is demonstrably false. Question 4) If you wish to stand by your view that incest was "long gone" by what mechanism do you propose that the humans repopulated? Regarding question 2, according to you, salvation is in Christ, that came to save us from original sin, and who was of the line of Adam. If evolutionary theory is true, then Jesus was not of the line of Adam, and the entire reason and plan of salvation fails, so your view on these subjects is of utmost importance. Unless you can do some amazing mental gymnastics and do some whirly twirl interpretation of the bible. Question 5) Do you accept evolutionary theory? (Human descended from primates over millions of years) This ties into my question 5 above. Regarding question 3 in the top quote, where I was asking if you thought the Genesis stories are myths or metaphorical you answered "I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures." So by this I am understanding you are taking the biblical accounts of creation and Noah's flood literally? If this is the case then: Question 6) Can you confirm whether you are a young earth creationist, or an Old earth creationist? We are at 15 days and counting. Please answer. Thanks LF Quote Snap again BAA - it occurred to me I hadn't bumped this for a bit, come here and you have bumped. We are in sync... its a sign.. of something... Bump. IH It is now 20 days and no reply. Please address my questions 4,5 & 6 in BLUE Well I think its time for a ... Bump! Ironhorse I see you are active at the moment (6-3-17, 4:18 UTC) . Please address questions 4, 5 and 6 in the quoted portion above. Thanks LF Here we go again. Ironhorse we haven't finished our conversation. Please answer questions in blue above.... before I go blue in the face from waiting. Ironhorse next time you are able to post, please address my questions 4,5 and 6 in blue in the quoted portion I've lost count of days waiting for reply. And for goodness sake please answer BAA... the poor guy is hanging out for an answer! Might I note that there are a total of 4 questions outstanding combined of BAA and myself. None of them are particularly difficult, or require a long technical answer. I can probably safely assume that if you have read these requests and the posts that you have already answered them in your head within seconds. So do be honest and continue the discussion. Thanks LF Bump for the umpteenth dozen time. Oh Ironhorse, the pipes the pipes are calling, from glen to glen, and down the mountain side.... Please answer or I'll end up like ol Danny Boy in the song before you reply. IRONHORSE Now that I have your attention, please answer questions 4-6 above. Thanks LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ DarkBishop ☆ Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 I actually have a pretty good apologetic study on this I need to post. Maybe play a little Devils advocate with you guys on the subject. I will try n do that after vacation when I have a little more time to devote to finding all the scriptures etc. Probably. Next week if I have a decent night at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts