Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
Above, I simply pointed out that two of the major Ron Wyatt research areas are now largely accepted, or at least considered as prime candidates, in the Biblical Archaeology world. Sinai and Noah's Ark. This should, to anyone reasonably fair and objective, add to the overall credibility of Ron Wyatt. (As opposed to your viewpoint, simply liar, liar, pants on fire.)
|
Brother Steven, you didn't read my post? Concerning the Biblical Archeological Review? Biblical Archeological Review has never said that Ron Wyatt found Noah's Ark, where the Israelites crossed the red sea, definitely not the Ark of the Covenant. Also NO WHERE are we told that any laboratory has the actual blood of Jesus Christ. No DNA test exists for the actual blood of Jesus Christ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
To avoid that conclusion, you go through the rambling blah-blah above.
And we get again all your feigned horror over the word "feelings"  !
Amazing. |
Brother Steven, what's this above? Are you looking to get into a fight with me? So we can get into a nice hair pulling contest? Look, you are supposed to have undeniable proof that Ron Wyatt wasn't a ecclesiastical grifter. No call to start trading blows. Just prove either with book, chapter, and verse. Or hard undeniable evidence that Ron Wyatt was credible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
btw, I may stop at the Biblical Archaeology conference in Boston in late November. There are three conferences, the other two are ETS and SBL (woke alert!) and my Baptist pastor study partner, with Greek skills, is in that region as well. Maybe I can catch Nehemia Gordon and others.
|
What is the purpose of you telling me your vacation plans for the future? I'm asking for you to proof your case, teach what you can prove. In English.
