Changes

First "nonsense", and now "rants".  At least Mr Back and I are able to keep this on what he termed a "professional level" in spite of our disagreements.  But then I suppose that Mr Back would also be considered a "nonsensical ranter" by you for his comments.  If you recall, DouglasA, I once stated that I have no problem with seeing the Bible as the inspired word of God.  I just have problems with those like you who make claims about what it says.  Maybe you were too incensed to notice, but I did mention that JacobB's link from the baraminology discussion made the claim about televisions and Matthew 24:15.  If you feel that my considering that claim to be very dubious somehow denies God's word, then I would say that your conclusion is nonsensical.  As for dinosaurs - once again - in my discussion about the tannin in Genesis, I stated that you or anyone else was free to interpret that very loose term as including dinosaurs.  However, I don't see the need to do so.  Does my interpretation of this one word therefore imply that I deny the inspired word of God?  Hardly.  I just find your claim and your interpretation extremely doubtful.  Frankly, DouglasA, it seems that you are confusing your claims with the word of God.  They are obviously not the same.  And if you have a disagreement with any of my comments, I would prefer that you use the "professional level" of discourse - where you cite chapter and verse in support of your ideas - since "loving your neighbor as yourself" doesn't seem to be your forte. - Danielitld

First "nonsense", and now "rants".  At least Mr Back and I are able to keep this on what he termed a "professional level" in spite of our disagreements.  But then I suppose that Mr Back would also be considered a "nonsensical ranter" by you for his comments.  If you recall, DouglasA, I once stated that I have no problem with seeing the Bible as the inspired word of God.  I just have problems with those like you who make claims about what it says.  Maybe you were too incensed to notice, but I did mention that JacobB's link from the baraminology discussion made the claim about televisions and Matthew 24:15.  If you feel that my considering that claim to be very dubious somehow denies God's word, then I would say that your conclusion is nonsensical.  As for dinosaurs - once again - in my discussion about the tannin in Genesis, I stated that you or anyone else was free to interpret that very loose term as including dinosaurs.  However, I don't see the need to do so.  Does my interpretation of this one word therefore imply that I deny the inspired word of God?  Hardly.  I just find your claim and your interpretation extremely doubtful.  Frankly, DouglasA, it seems that you are confusing your claims with the word of God.  They are obviously not the same.  And if you have a disagreement with any of my comments, I would prefer that you use the "professional level" of discourse - where you cite chapter and verse in support of your ideas - since "loving your neighbor as yourself" doesn't seem to be your forte. - Danielitld