From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Thu Dec 05 2002 - 07:37:31 EST
In a message dated 12/5/02 12:00:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,=20
gmurphy@raex.com writes:
> . Thus your last sentence - with its implied=20
> criticism of the canonical
> text - quite misses the point.
> Shalom,
> George
>=20
>=20
That last sentence was not mine - if this sentence below is the one you're=20
talking about - and I have simply quoted the text in the part of the post I=20
did write - God does predict the efficacy of cunning... that's pretty=20
straightforward and in the text. If you don't want to use the word approve=20
that's fine. Then use the word predict - because that's what God does,=20
predict that cunning will win out.
NOT MINE:=20
When we saw that in the 9/11 episode, we were repulsed. Should we be any=A0=20
less repulsed when we see it incorporated in canonical text?
rich=A0 =A0=20
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Dec 06 2002 - 22:53:30 EST