I need an explanation

IisJustMe · Jun 29, 2006

gluadys said:
So, no, the same cannot be arguably assumed about David.

To say that heliocentricity leaped into being with Galileo is an incorrect assumption. The fact is, Galileo was the first to develop a theory and a mathematical dynamic that supported heliocentricity. To say that no one conceived of a heliocentric solar system prior to Galileo is to deny history, and the written evidence. Pythagorus, best known for his work in mathematics, was the first to develop the idea that the earth is spherical in nature, and his pupil Philolaus (approx. 500 BC) was the first to begin work along the lines of a heliocentric system. The ancient Egyptians, who enslaved Israel for 430 years, developed a crude model of the solar system with the sun at its center in 2200 BC, fully 800 years before the Exodus and 1200 years before David wrote Psalm 19.

The fact is, the Bible is silent on heliocentricity, the expansion or contraction of the universe, life on other planets, and many other concepts that have been erroneously stated by YEC opponents to beunscientifically or erroneously addressed in the Scriptures. That the earth is unique and special in God's economy is beyond question. In fact, efforts by some scientists to prove that the earth is not the unique and special planet the Bible very clearly teaches it to be, have failed completely. While the earth is lush, green, bountiful and fruitful, the rest of the known universe appears to be barren and deserted.

Given that, can the leap to conclusion that the Bible teaches geocentrism be made successfully? No, it cannot. In fact, the Bible again is completely silent on that aspect of science. Implicit arguments may be developed that would make Scripture appear to teach geocentrism, an immobile earth at the center of the universe, but in none of these arguments do the Bible verses used to accomplish this goal rest in a context of an overall discussion of the physical form of the universe. That simply is absent from the Bible.

gluadys said:
What can be arguably assumed is that David would take for granted the common assumptions of his time. When David and his contemporaries spoke of the sun rising and setting and moving through the sky they believed they were describing actual solar motion. They had no context for considering these phrases to be mere custom.

Because of the aforementioned facts -- that heliocentrism predates Galileo's detailed theory, and that the Bible is silent on the mechanics and makeup of the universe -- there is no way you can confidently make that series of statements. It is assumption, to be discussed and debated, but never proven. In reality, the known facts speak against the likelihood of of David having such a misconception. Pythagorus' work, as well as Philolaus, and the evidence left by the ancient Egyptians, must lead us to the conclusion that it is naive (no offense) to think David was not aware of scientific thoughts along the lines of a heliocentric system. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, his writing wasn't from a scientific viewpoint, but a spiritual view of God's relationship to His creation, and the coming redemption of fallen man.

gluadys said:
Again, I would like to see an example of vocabulary, verb tense, syntax, etc. that must be literal and cannot be figurative. I taught grammar and composition for many years. And although Hebrew is not among the languages I have studied,I have studied several others. And whether it is English, French, Russian or whatever, I have never heard of a language that has this sort of structural contrast.

As you've said, you have not studied Hebrew. I have. So who should be trusted to express the facts of the Hebrew language here -- you, or me?

gluadys said:
The grammatical structure of poetry is identical to the grammatical structure of prose. The grammatical structure of an allegory is identical to the grammatical structure of a journalist's report.

That is totally inconsequential not only to this discussion, but to Hebrew poetry in general. It is not constructed in the same fashion as traditional romance, germanic or even other semitic languages. It is not written in a style reminiscent of meter, rhyme, or structure, but rather finds its style in its nuance of duality, contrast, and irony. If you have not studied it, you cannot begin to understand the complexity of its structure, which is as much science as anything existing before or since.

gluadys said:
Certainly, they sound different and one can usually tell when language is being used figuratively, but I don't see them using language with different vocabulary or syntax.

Again, you haven't studied it. To attempt to understand it because you have studied other unrelated languages does your own scholarship severe disservice -- would you attempt to understand Swahili by using vocabulary rules established for Middle European languages? -- and belittles the study of the langauge by people who have actually made the effort to know it.

shernren · Jun 29, 2006

I hope you won't mind my taking this thread onto a completely different track, but a statement like this immediately raises warning bells in my head:

What I see OEC'ists, TE'ists, and others doing, is giving less weight to God's word than the arguable scientific evidence.

because it's quite simply wrong. I see a model in your head (though I might be wrong) of how people interpret the Bible:

TEs: 10% Bible, 90% science
OECs: 30% Bible, 70% science
YECs: 100% Bible, 0% science

and that's quite plainly wrong. The real picture is:

TEs: 10% literalism, 100% Bible, 100% science
OECs: 30% literalism, 100% Bible, 100% science
YECs: 100% literalism, 100% Bible, 100% science

where "literalism" is an overall word covering the Enlightenment truth-as-historicity worldview, empiricism, scientism, materialism, and (ironically) the individualism inherent in the "common-man" hermeneutical approach. This is a harsh list of philosophies to append to YECism but I have thought hard about it and I believe that YECism incorporates all of those.

I have to run right now, but here's what I mean when I say that all interpretations involve 100% science:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2848141-the-scientific-myth-of-creationism.html&page=5

(posts #43 and #45)

IisJustMe · Jun 29, 2006

shernren said:
I see a model in your head (though I might be wrong) of how people interpret the Bible:

That's the danger of posting to a thread when you haven't read through the whole thread. My OP wasn't a novel, or a scientific work, and could not possible hope to address my entire thought process. Had you read through the rest of this thread, you wouldn't have come to this conclusion. I honestly don't see everyone in each concept of creation engaging each authority you've given at a 100% ratio.

I see many YEC'ists ignoring science completely. I see many TE'ists and OEC'ists being selective of Scripture, or trying to understanding it without knowing the vast differences about the original languages from English. I see arrogance on the part of the educated of both sides, which is then used to belittle the opposing viewpoint instead of valid attempts to understand the opponent. I see blanket statements made by some of both sides that indicate extremely poor scholarship by some of both sides.

Worst of all, I see pride where humility should hold sway. I was hoping this thread might cut through some of that C**P and let a dialogue develop that could help all of us see we're on the same side, and its the world that is wrong and in danger of being lost forever. We are not of the world, yet we treat each other worse than those of the world treat us. Instead of that dialogue, I see more pride, more arrogance, more poor scholarship and absolutely no humility from those who are supposed to grow in humility in order to be more Christ-like.

This is not a shot at you. I apologize for making your post the subject of my ire. I just wonder why, as another thread here recently stated, if we are indeed all creationists, we seem to treat each other as the Enemy.

gluadys · Jun 29, 2006

IisJustMe said:
To say that heliocentricity leaped into being with Galileo is an incorrect assumption.

An assumption I did not make. I alluded to Greek philosophers who considered heliocentrism. But
1. Pythagoras, Heraclitus and others who supported heliocentrism lived long after David, and
2. There is no reason to assume that David had any contact with any philosophy from which to draw the notion of heliocentricity.

The most parsimonious assumption is that he never considered disputing the basic understanding of his generation.

The fact is, Galileo was the first to develop a theory and a mathematical dynamic that supported heliocentricity. To say that no one conceived of a heliocentric solar system prior to Galileo is to deny history, and the written evidence.

Actually, Copernicus developed the math, and yes, he did precede Galileo. Galileo defended Copernicus, but the real clincher was his use of the telescope which revealed such things as the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter which could not be accounted for by a geocentric theory.

The fact is, the Bible is silent on heliocentricity,

The bible tends not to answer questions which were not being asked at the time it was written. So again, the most parsimonious assumption is that the writers assumed the correctness of the world-view of their time and did not question it.

Nothing in scripture suggests geo-centricity is wrong. Every allusion to the structure of the cosmos in scripture is consistent (often more consistent) with geo-centricity.

This is not, as I see it, a scriptural "teaching". It is rather a sort of background noise from the culture of the human authors. It is easy to see, however, that scripture could be used (as it was) to support geo-centricity. It cannot be used to support helio-centricity, since it never speaks in a way that is consistent with helio-centricity. Not surprisingly, since those early supporters of helio-centricity were often sun worshippers and used theological arguments to make their case that the sun god should have pride of place in the cosmos. We would not expect biblical writers to be open to that line of thinking.

As you've said, you have not studied Hebrew. I have. So who should be trusted to express the facts of the Hebrew language here -- you, or me?

There are some fundamentals of grammar that are universal. All languages have nouns and verbs for example. The ways they are used (case endings for nouns vs. prefixes or prepositions to indicate relationships) vary considerably. Some languages differentiate strongly between a subject or object that is animate vs. one that is inanimate. Others don't. But the basic syntactical structure of subject-verb-object is found in all languages if not always in that order.

You are making claims about Hebrew that I have never seen featured in any language. If you know it well, you should be able to provide the examples I have requested. You explicitly referred to verb tense. Can you give me an example of a Hebrew verb tense which is never used in a figurative context. And the counterpart which is used in a figurative context.

IisJustMe · Jun 29, 2006

gluadys said:
1. Pythagoras, Heraclitus and others who supported heliocentrism lived long after David

You ignored my statements regarding the ancient Egyptians, who described a crude heliocentric solar system model in 2200 BC

gluadys said:
and 2. There is no reason to assume that David had any contact with any philosophy from which to draw the notion of heliocentricity.

Since the ancient Egyptians were the captors of his people and were the chief educators of the first deliverer of Israel (Moses), perhaps you would like to rethink that response.

gluadys said:
The most parsimonious assumption is that he never considered disputing the basic understanding of his generation.

And yet again ... his primary purpose was not to describe the solar system, but to praise God.

gluadys said:
The bible tends not to answer questions which were not being asked at the time it was written. So again, the most parsimonious assumption is that the writers assumed the correctness of the world-view of their time and did not question it.

Projection of erroneous assumptions onto biblical passages doesn't prove an argument, it simply detracts from the opinion others may have of your scholarship.

gluadys said:
Nothing in scripture suggests geo-centricity is wrong.Every allusion to the structure of the cosmos in scripture is consistent (often more consistent) with geo-centricity

You're trying to prove what the Bible says by pointing out what it doesn't say. That's a completely invalid method of argument. If it were valid, murders would be convicted based on their refusal to testify. I point out yet again that the Bible says nothing definitive about the mechanics of the universe, only how it came into being. To refuse to accept what it says about creation, but to accept "errors" based on what it does not say, is inconsistent scholarship.

gluadys said:
You are making claims about Hebrew that I have never seen featured in any language. If you know it well, you should be able to provide the examples I have requested.

I cannot, without launching into the equivilent of a lecture from my Hebrew 230 class, possibly explain so complex a concept to you as the Hebrew use of negation idioms. There are some very good resources on the web. Also, Timothy R. Carmody's book, Reading the Bible, is an excellent resource.

gluadys said:
You explicitly referred to verb tense.p

That reference was to the Greek language, that has three more tenses than the English.

gluadys said:
Can you give me an example of a Hebrew verb tense which is never used in a figurative context. And the counterpart which is used in a figurative context.

If you are open to a PM, I can explain that concept as it relates to the Greek language. If you wish information on, for example, negation idioms in the Hebrew, I'd be happy to provide that via PM as well. Again, tackling this subject is not something that can be presented in three paragraphs or less.

steen · Jun 29, 2006

IisJustMe said:
The perfect 3.0 ratio of the diameter to the circumfurance, as opposed to 3.14159etc., is applied to the inner lip of the bowl. If you check the diameter of the bowl, you will see this is mathmatically accurate. The pi ratio would apply to the outer edge.

This MUST be a "Poe"? Really, seriously, you are serious about this? Pi applies to ANY circle. The inner lip or the outer lip, the result would be the same.

The circumference of a circle is ALWAYS Pi times the radius squared.
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.pi.html

And Pi is 3.14 or more specifically, 22/7

So the circumference of the inner lip is 3.14 times the radius squared.

The circumference of the outside edge is 3.14 times the radius squared (The radius now being bigger, as the distance to the outer edge is longer than to the inner lip).

Pi is ALWAYS 3.14, just like 2+2 is ALWAYS 4.

So when the Bible gives measurements that shows Pi to be 3.0 rather than 3.14, then the Bible is WRONG. There is no other way of saying it. Pi is NOT 3.0, and claiming so makes the bible WRONG, not to mention flunking math.

You really DIDN'T know what Pi was, did you????

random_guy · Jun 29, 2006

steen said:
This MUST be a "Poe"? Really, seriously, you are serious about this? Pi applies to ANY circle. The inner lip or the outer lip, the result would be the same.

The circumference of a circle is ALWAYS Pi times the radius squared.
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.pi.html

And Pi is 3.14 or more specifically, 22/7

So the circumference of the inner lip is 3.14 times the radius squared.

The circumference of the outside edge is 3.14 times the radius squared (The radius now being bigger, as the distance to the outer edge is longer than to the inner lip).

Pi is ALWAYS 3.14, just like 2+2 is ALWAYS 4.

So when the Bible gives measurements that shows Pi to be 3.0 rather than 3.14, then the Bible is WRONG. There is no other way of saying it. Pi is NOT 3.0, and claiming so makes the bible WRONG, not to mention flunking math.

You really DIDN'T know what Pi was, did you????

Umm, I really hope you meant pi is approximately 3.14 because pi is an irrational number which can not be represented as a fraction. pi goes on forever 3.14159265......

However, the rest of your point stands.

steen · Jun 29, 2006

IisJustMe said:
This is not a shot at you. I apologize for making your post the subject of my ire. I just wonder why, as another thread here recently stated, if we are indeed all creationists, we seem to treat each other as the Enemy.

The moment YEC cease making false claims about science, the animosity ceases. But I don't tolerate being lied to.

steen · Jun 29, 2006

random_guy said:
Umm, I really hope you meant pi is approximately 3.14 because pi is an irrational number which can not be represented as a fraction. pi goes on forever 3.14159265......

yes, I use 3.14 as a substitute for 22/7 (qwhich actually also is not entirely specific, but close enough for just about any measurement needed).

However, the rest of your point stands.

Now, we just havce to wait for Iisjustme to reply in a meaningful manner. I am still curious about how somebody can justify Pi=3.0

Willtor · Jun 29, 2006

steen said:
yes, I use 3.14 as a substitute for 22/7 (qwhich actually also is not entirely specific, but close enough for just about any measurement needed).

Now, we just havce to wait for Iisjustme to reply in a meaningful manner. I am still curious about how somebody can justify Pi=3.0

3.14 is more accurate than 22/7. That aside, I think IisJustMe was saying that the circumference was a measurement of the inside lip, and the diameter was a measurement from outside lip to outside lip. I have heard this before, and the numbers work out far more cleanly. All the same, I agree, I don't think teaching us math was the intent of the author. Otherwise, either the diameter or the circumference would be expressed in terms of pi, rather than as a whole number.

Edit: Whoops, I was mistaken about the 3.14 and 22/7's comment. Sorry. But the rest of my post still stands.

shernren · Jun 30, 2006

That's the danger of posting to a thread when you haven't read through the whole thread.

No, that's the danger (mine) of starting a post which will take quite a bit of explanation when you have class in five minutes and the lecturer says people from the accreditation board will be here to observe so be early! I did read through the whole thread, dear brother, and whatever pride I may have exhibited comes solely from the fact that I didn't have the time to write up a proper reply to express what I wanted to say. Sorry.

But I don't see what the difference is between what you said:

I see many YEC'ists ignoring science completely. I see many TE'ists and OEC'ists being selective of Scripture, or trying to understanding it without knowing the vast differences about the original languages from English.

and my summary:

TEs: 10% Bible, 90% science
OECs: 30% Bible, 70% science
YECs: 100% Bible, 0% science

I'm just using a more math-ish format of presentation, that's all. Now to explain what I meant when I say that everybody uses 100% science to interpret the Bible.

Imagine for a moment that I use the word "science" to mean "accurate natural descriptions of the world". What would "science" include? To the YECist, "science" would exclude things like evolution, the Big Bang, radiodating, etc. Since these things never happened, they obviously aren't "scientific" in the sense of accurately describing the world. The OECist might accept more things as being "scientific", such as the Big Bang and radiodating. The TEist thinks that evolution, the Big Bang, and radiodating are "scientific".

Can the Bible determine what is "scientific" in that sense? No, because the Bible is devoted to an a-scientific description of the universe, as has been noted in the geocentricity argument here. Someone who decides that the Bible teaches geocentricity doesn't do so because that is the plain meaning of the Bible, s/he does so because s/he does not accept heliocentricity (which would have been very prevalent before the advent of heliocentricity) as "science". Someone who accepts heliocentricity as "science", on the other hand, does so antecedent to any Scriptural injunctions. Has the heliocentrist used science more and Scripture less than the geocentrist? Not really; it is just that the heliocentrist considers heliocentricity a valid part of science while the geocentrist doesn't, each going on to then consider the entirety of the Bible in relation to what they have first considered science.

My point is that the YECist has rejected evolutionism before looking at the Bible to "see what it says", probably because the YECist doesn't really understand evolutionary science. (This is a statement of fact. Many of us don't really understand much of life outside our fields of specialty. ) The YECist then reads Scripture, finds it self-consistent without evolution, and then wonders why anyone needs evolution "when the Bible clearly contradicts it!" However, if there was a self-consistent interpretation of the Bible to someone who believes in the scientific truth of evolution, how do you know he is relying less on the Bible, or relying on less of the Bible, just because he is accepting evolution as science?

I use the word "science" in quotes because the most common definition in creationist argument is completely different: science is "whatever scientists spend their time studying". Of course evolution is science under that definition even if it's completely bogus. And yet many scientific truths are not considered "science" when those terms are used. For example, a creationist saying "a local flood can't stay 15 feet above the mountains for 40 days!" is using science to interpret the Bible: nothing in the Bible forbids water from doing this, only science.

IisJustMe · Jun 30, 2006

steen said:
Really, seriously, you are serious about this? Pi applies to ANY circle. The inner lip or the outer lip, the result would be the same.

The outer diameter ratio is 3.0 to the inner circumferance. That's what I was referring to, and that is what the biblical passage is referring to. I'm an engineer, for cryin' out loud! Thanks for the lesson on pi but it was unnecessary.

steen · Jun 30, 2006

IisJustMe said:
The outer diameter ratio is 3.0 to the inner circumferance. That's what I was referring to, and that is what the biblical passage is referring to.

Nowhere does it state this. You are making up stuff here.

I'm an engineer, for cryin' out loud!

Hmm, and yet so little regard for factual measurements?

Thanks for the lesson on pi but it was unnecessary.

Actually, it seems like it still is necessary. I just had to clarify this for some other guy here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t3120225-scientific-accuracies-of-the-bible.html
(post #24)

picnic · Jun 30, 2006

1 Kings 7:23 is the passage referred to.

I think the passage is unclear in the relationship between the diameter, in that it doesn't explicitly say inner or outer, and the circumference. Three makes a good approximation for pi anyway so I don't see what anyone's problem is really, YEC or otherwise.

picnic

steen · Jun 30, 2006

picnic said:
1 Kings 7:23 is the passage referred to.

I think the passage is unclear in the relationship between the diameter, in that it doesn't explicitly say inner or outer, and the circumference. Three makes a good approximation for pi anyway so I don't see what anyone's problem is really, YEC or otherwise.

picnic

I disagree. AS you seem not to be able to link to my argument in the other tread, I will repost it here (it is in response to another poster, which will reflect the format):
------------------

Caissie said:
Sorry, you are wrong. You forgot to take into account the hand breadth thickness of the bowl. When this is taken into account, you come up to 3.14.

1King:7 23-26:
[23] Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.

[24] Under its brim were gourds, for thirty cubits, compassing the sea round about; the gourds were in two rows, cast with it when it was cast.

[25] It stood upon twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east; the sea was set upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward.

[26] Its thickness was a handbreadth; and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily; it held two thousand baths.

The text talks exclusively about the brim.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/circumference
Main Entry: cir·cum·fer·ence

Pronunciation: s&(r)-'k&m(p)-f&rn(t)s, -f(&-)r&n(t)sFunction: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin circumferentia, from circumferre to carry around, from circum- + ferre to carry -- more at [SIZE=-1]BEAR[/SIZE]
1 : the perimeter of a circle
2 : the external boundary or surface of a figure or object : [SIZE=-1]PERIPHERY[/SIZE]

As for the two terms here, perimeter and periphery, they BOTH relate to outside edges. Lets look:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/perimeter
Main Entry: pe·rim·e·ter

Pronunciation: p&-'ri-m&-t&r Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English perimetre, from Latin perimetros, from Greek, from peri- + metron measure -- more at [SIZE=-1]MEASURE[/SIZE]
1 a : the boundary of a closed plane figure b : the length of a perimeter
2 : a line or strip bounding or protecting an area
3 : outer limits -- often used in plural

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/periphery
Main Entry: pe·riph·ery

Pronunciation: p&-'ri-f(&-)rE Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -er·ies
Etymology: Middle French peripherie, from Late Latin peripheria, from Greek periphereia, from peripherein to carry around, from peri- + pherein to carry -- more at [SIZE=-1]BEAR[/SIZE]
1 : the perimeter of a circle or other closed curve; also : the perimeter of a polygon
2 : the external boundary or surface of a body
3 a : the outward bounds of something as distinguished from its internal regions or center : [SIZE=-1]CONFINES[/SIZE] b : an area lying beyond the strict limits of a thing

So 30 cubits clearly is the circumference, the peripehry, the perimeter. Diameter across is 10 cubits. Ratio thus is 3, not 3.14

The 10 cubits was from end to end (would be important to know to try and get the bowl though a doorway).

The Bible says no such thing. So you admit that you are rationalizing here, right?

They measured the 30 cubits around from the inner part of the bowl

The Bible says no such thing. Rather, it shows the measurement to be on the outside brim as well. So you admit that you are rationalizing, right?

which would be useful if one needed to know how much liquid it would hold

Actually, the text already tells you that it holds "two thousand baths." So your argument is based on rationalizing, with no basis in scripture, with reasons already accounted for in scripture. So you are trying to MAKE scripture confirm to what you know about the real world and math. Kind of what creationists are accusing TE of doing. Hmm...

But one thing is clear. We always say that we have no idea what a CUBIT is. Here, IF YOU ARE RIGHT, a "handsbreath" is 0.44586 Cubit.

So now we know how big the Ark would have to be. Genesis 6:
[15] This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.
[16] Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and set the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks.

Lets just look at the width. 50 cubits, 5 times the width of the "Molten Sea." That would then be 22.29 handsbreaths. Kind of a narrow Ark. Height 30 cubits, 13,38 handsbreaths. No room for any elephants or giraffes there. Hmm. So your argument not only is bogus for the Molten Sea, it also makes Noah's Ark into a small yacht. So in either case, the Bible has an outright error.

(what point is there to know how big around the bowl is from the outside).

Well, that would be the perceived size.

So either Pi is 3.0 or the Ark is a yacht. A small yacht. Which is it?

RightWingGirl · Jun 30, 2006

picnic said:
Just because I don't take the first chapter of Genesis literally, doesn't mean that I don't take the whole of God's Bible as God's word.

You don't take God's word literally?

picnic · Jun 30, 2006

If you took the whole of the Bible literally then you'd be in trouble.

Eye plucking anyone? (Matt 5v29)

I take the whole of the Bible as God's Word. That doesn't imply you have to take it literally.

picnic

IisJustMe · Jun 30, 2006

steen said:
Nowhere does it state this. You are making up stuff here.

Before you accuse a fellow Christian of lying (which is what you just did) you'd better actually read the passage concerned. The thickness of the bowl is prescribed in the text, and if you will check, you'll see the 3.0 ratio of the inside circumferance to the outside diameter. I'm sure you know what package I'm talking about -- right? I'll ignore the balance of your post for obvious reasons. I think you need to ask yourself why you allow yourself to get so hostile and upset over a message board.

steen · Jun 30, 2006

IisJustMe said:
Before you accuse a fellow Christian of lying (which is what you just did)

Oh? Because I disagree with you?

you'd better actually read the passage concerned. The thickness of the bowl is prescribed in the text,

Here is what it said in that verse:
[23] Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.

and if you will check, you'll see the 3.0 ratio of the inside circumferance to the outside diameter.

Nope, the text nowhere states this. That claim remains false.

I'm sure you know what package I'm talking about -- right?

]Nope.

I'll ignore the balance of your post for obvious reasons.

The only thing obvious to me is that you have no meaningful answers. But perhaps it is less obvious than that?

I think you need to ask yourself why you allow yourself to get so hostile and upset over a message board

Hostile? I merely corrected what I saw as an outright error in your claims. Why would that be hostile? Because it disagrees with you?

artybloke · Jul 1, 2006

Eye plucking anyone? (Matt 5v29)

Never heard of the Eye-plucking Baptists?

I need an explanation

He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

you are not reading this.

He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

Legend

He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

Lie Detector

Senior Veteran

Lie Detector

Lie Detector

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

you are not reading this.

He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

Lie Detector

Veteran

Lie Detector

Well-Known Member

Veteran

He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

Lie Detector

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency