Re: Concordist sequence--why be a concordist?

From: Jay Willingham (jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com)
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 13:20:39 EDT

Next message: Dick Fischer: "To Concord or Not to Concord"

Previous message: Terry M. Gray: "Re: Concordist sequence"
Maybe in reply to: Ted Davis: "Re: Concordist sequence--why be a concordist?"
Next in thread: RFaussette@aol.com: "Re: Concordist sequence--why be a concordist?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

In a message dated 6/25/03 8:27:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hvantill@chartermi.net writes:

  I'm wondering now if this also represents the views of persons on this list
  who take a similar concordist approach -- arguing that the the results of
  the empirical natural sciences provide support for the Bible, when properly
  interpreted.

Anyone else care to comment?

I agree with the position above stated.

Jay Willingham, Esquire

Next message: Dick Fischer: "To Concord or Not to Concord"
Previous message: Terry M. Gray: "Re: Concordist sequence"
Maybe in reply to: Ted Davis: "Re: Concordist sequence--why be a concordist?"
Next in thread: RFaussette@aol.com: "Re: Concordist sequence--why be a concordist?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 13:20:42 EDT