But Does It Move? Part 2

Bookmark and Share

July 5, 2012 Tags: Biblical Interpretation

Today's entry was written by John Lennox. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.

But Does It Move? Part 2

Note: As it says at the top of the BioLogos Forum homepage, “We believe that charitable engagement of different perspectives within the Church helps sharpen our thinking and deepen our commitment to the truth that is hidden in Christ.” In that spirit, today we continue a three-part series taken from chapter 2 of Dr. John Lennox’s recent book, Seven Days that Divide the World.

Though Lennox disagrees with several specific BioLogos positions (points he makes clear in later chapters), there is much we agree upon: namely, the trustworthiness of scientific evidence for an old earth, and the compatibility of an old earth with a faithful reading of Genesis. Most importantly, though, Lennox displays exactly the kind of gentle argumentation that we try to model through the Forum as a whole, and that should be a distinctive characteristic of Christians in the public square. We are pleased to be able to present this essay from Dr. Lennox as an example of both gracious dialogue and sound principles for interpreting scripture.

In part 1, Dr. Lennox offered general principles for interpreting scripture. Today, in part 2, Dr. Lennox applies these lessons to the controversy with Galileo about whether the earth moves and what the Bible has to say about it.

Let us therefore now apply what we have learned to the moving-earth controversy, to see how Christians eventually came to accept this “new” interpretation and ceased to insist on a literalistic understanding of the foundations and pillars of the earth.

Of course, this did not happen overnight. For many years, if not centuries, there would have been two major polarized positions: the fixed-earthers and the moving-earthers—with the latter group growing in number all the time. These positions were held, not only by people for whom Scripture had little or no authority (although there must have been some such), but by those who were convinced that the Bible was the inspired Word of God and who regarded it as the full and final authority. The latter would agree on the core elements of the gospel, including the doctrines of creation; the fall; salvation; the incarnation, life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ; the expectation of his return; and the final judgement. They disagreed, however, on what Scripture taught about the motion of the earth.

This immediately raises several questions. Were these differences simply driven by a desire on the part of the moving-earth faction to fit in with advances in science; or were they the result of intransigence and antiscientific attitudes on the part of the fixed-earth faction? Did the moving-earthers necessarily compromise the integrity and authority of Scripture?

The Bible and Science

First, some general comments. It is often said that the Bible is not relevant to science at all. Indeed, well-known American palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University suggested that religion and science belong to separate domains or magisteria.1 He meant that science and religion deal with fundamentally distinct questions, and harmony can be achieved if we keep the two completely apart.

Now this view (often referred to by the acronym NOMA—nonoverlapping magisteria) has an obvious attraction for some people: if science and the Bible have nothing to do with each other, then our problem is solved. However, there are two very big snags. Firstly, the claim that science and religion are completely separate often conceals another belief: that science deals with reality, and religion with Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and God. The impression that science deals with truth and religion deals with fantasy is very widespread. No one who is convinced of the truth, inspiration, and authority of Scripture could agree with that.

But there is another snag with Gould’s view. We cannot keep science and Scripture completely separate, for the simple reason that the Bible talks about some of the things that science talks about. And they are very important things—like the origin of the universe and of life. They are also foundational both to science and to philosophy. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1) and “God created man in his own image” (Gen. 1:27) are statements about the objective physical universe and the status of human beings, with very far-reaching implications for our understanding of the universe and of ourselves.

Let me make my position clear. I am a scientist who believes Scripture to be the Word of God. I am not shy, therefore, of drawing scientific implications from it, where warranted. However, saying Scripture has scientific implications does not mean that the Bible is a scientific treatise from which we can deduce Newton’s Laws, Einstein’s equations, or the chemical structure of common salt. John Calvin wrote in his commentary on Genesis, “Nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.”2

Indeed, one of the fascinating tasks we are encouraged to do in God’s universe is to do just that—to find out many things for ourselves. Remember, according to Genesis, it was God himself who told the first humans to name the animals: he was not going to do it for them (Gen. 2:19–20). That is very interesting, because naming things is the very essence of science (we call it taxonomy); and so it was God who started science off! It was for this kind of reason that the brilliant scientist James Clerk-Maxwell had the words of Psalm 111:2 (KJV) engraved on the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge: “The works of the LORD are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein.” God loves an enquiring mind, a fact that has been a great encouragement to me in my study of mathematics and the history and philosophy of science.

We can surely also agree that the Bible is not written in advanced contemporary scientific language. This circumstance should not cause us any surprise or difficulty, but rather gratitude and relief. Suppose, for instance, that God had intended to explain the origin of the universe and life to us in detailed scientific language. Science is constantly changing, developing, standing in need of correction, although (we trust) becoming more and more accurate. If the biblical explanation were at the level, say, of twenty-second-century science, it would likely be unintelligible to everyone, including scientists today. This could scarcely have been God’s intention. He wished his meaning to be accessible to all.3 Indeed, one of the most remarkable things about Genesis is that it is accessible to, and has a message for, everyone, whether or not they are scientifically literate. As John Calvin put it,

The Holy Spirit had no intention to teach astronomy; and, in proposing instruction meant to be common to the simplest and most uneducated persons, he made use by Moses and the other prophets of popular language … The Holy Spirit would rather speak childishly than unintelligibly to the humble and unlearned.4

This statement, be it noted, does not come from someone who was vague about the authority of Scripture; nor is it a recent reflection produced by the alleged embarrassment of Christians confronted by modern science. Indeed, Augustine (354–430) had already had the same thought a thousand years before Calvin: “We do not read in the Gospel that the Lord said that I send to you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and the moon, for he wanted to make Christians and not mathematicians.”

Rather than scientific language, the Bible often uses what is called phenomenological language—the language of appearance. It describes what anyone can see. It talks about the sun rising just as everyone else does, including scientists, even though they know that the sun only appears to rise because of the rotation of the earth. Saying that the sun “rises” does not commit the Bible, or a scientist for that matter, to any particular model of the solar system.

Having said all that, however, let us once again emphasize the key issue. The Bible, though not a textbook of science, precisely because it is God’s revealed Word, has truth to tell us about the same kind of objective reality that science discusses, in particular about the nature and origin of the cosmos and of human beings. We must therefore try to understand that truth.

In On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine offered Christians some interesting and valuable advice on how to engage with science. His advice shows that our scientifically advanced era is not the only one to be aware of the kind of tension precipitated by a perceived conflict between science and the biblical record. Augustine was well acquainted with it in his own day.5 What he has to say is worth quoting at some length in order to capture its spirit:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens … and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn … If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?6

Augustine has surely put his finger on one of the reasons none of us would maintain a base-level literalistic interpretation of the foundations and pillars of the earth: we don’t wish to appear scientifically illiterate7 and bring the Christian message into disrepute. Of course (but it needs to be said) Augustine is not suggesting that Christians should not be prepared to face ridicule over fundamental doctrines of the Christian message, like the deity of Christ, his resurrection, and so on. Such ridicule, often based on the false notion that science has made it impossible to believe in miracles,8 has been evident from the very beginnings of Christianity and still occurs today, as the present author has cause to know. The take-home message from Augustine is, rather, that, if my views on something not fundamental to the gospel, on which equally convinced Christians disagree, attract ridicule and therefore disincline my hearers to listen to anything I have to say about the Christian message, then I should be prepared to entertain the possibility that it might be my interpretation that is at fault.

In the final installment tomorrow, Dr. Lennox reminds us that while scripture is truly authoritative, our particular interpretations of it are not always accurate.

Notes

1. A magisterium is a body of teaching.
2. John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses, Called Genesis, trans. John King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 1:79.
3. We might also note that biblical Hebrew has a vocabulary of fewer than four thousand words, whereas in English roughly two hundred thousand words are in current use.
4. John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. V (Edinburgh: T. Constable, 1849), v.7, p. 184.
5. Please note that I don’t mean a twenty-four-hour day here—but more of that later!
6. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1 (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1982), chap. 19, v. 39, p. 42.
7. Although I note that there still exists today a website maintaining the Aristotelian view: www.fixedearth.com.
8. See Lennox, God’s Undertaker, chap. 12.


John Lennox is Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford, Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science, and Pastoral Advisor at Green Templeton College, Oxford. He is also an adjunct Lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University and at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and is a Senior Fellow of the Trinity Forum. In addition, he teaches for the Oxford Strategic Leadership Program at the Executive Education Centre, Said Business School, Oxford University. He is author of several books, including Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science.

< Previous post in series Next post in series >


Share your thoughts

Have a comment or question for the author? We'd love to hear from you.

View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Loading...
Page 1 of 1   1
GJDS - #70848

July 5th 2012

This is informative and a welcomed addition to this discussion; my contribution is to point out the Bible can only be comprehensible as revelation. When considering revelation a number of difficulties emerge. Even if it is agreed that we avoid ‘adding or taking away’ to the meaning of the Bible as a result of empirical investigation, we cannot reason that revelation may be within a range of phenomena that are human potentialities or of the human senses. We can rule out objective-based activities such as found in the natural sciences. Revelation cannot be defined in a way that philosophy or science may argue and consider within the ideas of reason. Those aspects of reason and knowledge that are intuitive (and indeed all knowledge), are usually subjected to tests of falsification and verification in the sciences and to criteria of reason in philosophical discussion. Reason however, needs to sustain the reasonableness of life, the goodness of life and the continuation of life. This is a matter for reason. It is not possible to reason goodness in life. It is possible for a person to consider the possibility of good in life, and this is usually through experience (à posteriori). For revelation to be valid, the person being revealed unto needs to be able to respond, to reason, and to consider the revelation within his (context of) life. It is this aspect of the subject matter that is essential for discussions that include Science and the Bible. It is part of objective reality that communicated knowledge is within a beginning and end. Communicated knowledge may also be considered as given, or knowledge whose origin is comprehended. The words intended to ascribe attributes to God may often be understood within the framework of human activity. Meaning results through the acts of human beings and it is this that enables us to proscribe a meaning that may be communicated between human beings. The nature of the reasoning that would normally result from such activities is an attribute that is totally within human activity. The activities should be more properly described as: (possibilities of) acts of mercy or cruelty; grace or brutality; will to good or will to evil. Human activity as such cannot be given within other frameworks. To make phrases that proscribe meaning of “God” requires us to understand such an attribute as being singularly so and not similar nor synonymous with the meaning of human attributes and activity. It is here that we begin to see the limitations of language and how we may understand anything written of spoken by us. I think this criterion applies to Genesis, and indeed the entire Bible. Meaning, just as Faith etc., must originate from God. It is we who then exercise our reason according to our various abilities and come to our particular understanding, communicated in our language.


George Bernard Murphy - #70992

July 9th 2012

There was a time when the earth did not rotate.

 When it did start to rotate it revolved about every 5 hours. This meant we had shorter days and more days in the year.

We learned this from the moon shots.

Can you explain how the scripture fits with these facts?


Eddie - #70853

July 6th 2012

This is a good column by Dr. Lennox.  While avoiding the problems associated with a crude literalism that would make the Bible into a science textbook, he avoids the other extreme, one too often embraced by theistic evolutionists, i.e., a NOMA-like approach which would eliminate all possible conflict between science and religion by a trick of definitional fiat.

High points of the article:  (1) whereas many theistic evolutionists have appealed to the passage from Augustine, Dr. Lennox makes sure to add the caveat that the principle of non-embarrassment is not absolute—there are some beliefs for which Christians should be willing to endure ridicule.  Not a fixed earth, but some things.  The argument often made:  “Well, if we say anything that the world thinks is ridiculous, our evangelical efforts won’t be successful”—is not sound.  The statement of Christian truth is more important than the immediate triumphs of evangelism.

(2) Whereas many theistic evolutionists have separated scientific from religious truth, this is often done in a careless way, a NOMA way.  Dr. Lennox brings out the point that while Genesis is not a scientific text, it still does concern real events—the origin of the universe, life, species, and man.  It is therefore not merely about “values, purposes, meaning” etc.  It is about something concrete.  Too often—as Nancy Pearcey has pointed out—Christians have tended to speak about the truths of science and the truths of faith in a way that suggests that the truths of science are firm, being grounded in the way the universe is, whereas the truths of faith are less firm, since they are human choices about how to interpret the universe.  This can lead, by an insidious mental process, to the downgrading of religious truth to merely private taste.  This is the hidden danger of NOMA-like thinking, and NOMA-like thinking is the perennial intellectual danger for theistic evolutionists.

BioLogos is to be congratulated for presenting a piece which approaches questions of origins with nuance, rather than with a simplistic division which tries to eliminate all faith/science tensions in advance.   I’d enjoy more columns like this. 


GJDS - #70957

July 8th 2012

“..the truths of science ...” is an interesting phrase. I just want to make a simple and non-controversial point. This phrase can just as easily be stated as “The Theory of Newton” or if one is so inclined, the truth given to us by Newton (etc), or any other insight provided by scientists. I would also look at “the truths of faith” and restate that as “God is truth”. This is not a play on words, (although I suspect critics may dissagree), but a statement on the way that I reason and consider truthful. Science must states its theorem(s) in language that is meaningful to all scientists and a lot of effort has gone into definitions etc., This is a way of accepting the limitations of science as it must deal with facts. From here the discussions then go into the usual ‘isms’ and philosophies, which I agree are more a matter of taste and inclination. Revelation is ‘God corrected’ and without this, it is meaningless - but it is not human-language limited in its meaning as science is.


KevinR - #70857

July 6th 2012

“Dr. Lennox reminds us that while scripture is truly authoritative, our particular interpretations of it are not always accurate.”

Further in the book, Dr Lennox firmly establishes that he believes in billions of years.

So whilst it’s OK to talk about how one’s interpretation of the bible might be inaccurate, he does not correspondingly go on to say that one’s interpretation of the physical world might also be at fault. Here, instead, Dr Lennox is only to happy to side with the atheistic interpretation of the physical evidence at hand.

In the case of the age of the earth and evolution from one cell to all of life, I’m firmly of the opinion that the interpretation of the physical evidence is definitely at fault.

Now as a result of such inaccurate interpretation of the natural world as well as acceptance of the atheistic view of our origins, people try to please those self-same atheists by “not wanting to appear foolish” in their pronouncements on our origins. In doing so, they simply loose the respect of those atheists who can quite clearly see the compromise being made - people do not believe the book they claim to believe. In fact the atheists then comes to despise rather than admire such compromise - thereby turning them away from ever coming to believe in the Almighty Creator.

 


darwin.dissenters - #70859

July 6th 2012

There are a number of questions that arise here. Firstly, whether the Church believed that the Earth moved or not is not directly relevant to the question of the meaning of day in Genesis 1. It is really a non-sequitur. A math student might get one question wrong, but that doesn’t automatically mean she gets all questions wrong.

I would suggest further that there is a correspondence between belief in a fixed unmoved Earth and long ages - both seem ‘true’ if we only consider that which is ‘immediate about our experience.’ But in order to understand that the Earth moves we need to ‘think outside of the box’ helped by telescopes and clever mathematical work by those such as Newton, Galileo and Kepler.

In the same way we need to move beyond Newton and ‘think outside of the box’ to try and understand Einstein’s way of thinking. This has a bearing upon the age of the Earth, because we now must deal with such things as time dilation and length contraction. It is the Young-Earth-Creationists who have tried to develop an understanding of what general relativity might say about the age of the universe. Old-Earth-Creationists seem too committed to Newtonian ways of thinking to engage with an exciting area of research - led by people like Russell Humphrey’s and John Hartnett.

Furthermore, it really is inappropriate to quote this passage of Augustine against YECs because it quotes him out of the context of his own wider beliefs - YECs are able to read Augustine and see the complexity of his beliefs. We find, in The City of God for instance, that Augustine believed that the Earth was 6000 years old, that the Flood was global, and although he for a time believed God had created everything at once, he later moved towards literal days, although seeing the light of the first three days as that of the heavenly City illuminating the newly formed Earth. 

But this passage about the foolishness of Christians quoting poor science also holds science as a hostage to fortune - because science is constantly changing. A Christian 500 years ago might have quoted the best geocentric science of his day, but now would look foolish. Augustine too seemed to accept some of the best Greek science of his day, but would now look foolish. His rationes seminales for instance looks similar to a belief in spontaneous generation.

So, let us together move beyond old arguments and engage in new ways of thinking in science and philosophy in order to understand the world.


wesseldawn - #70950

July 8th 2012

“is not directly relevant to the question of the meaning of day in Genesis 1”

Well, it’s relevant if you’re trying to make a point! If we’re going to quote the Bible, we must be certain about what it says. In this one respect we can’t be iffy about any subject!

Gen. 2:4 refers to ‘day’ as “generations” (obviously refers to a ‘long period of time’), which is highly important in the whole scheme of things.

A human being can get things wrong but the Bible won’t be wrong on any point.


Roger A. Sawtelle - #70924

July 7th 2012

KevinR,

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were all pagans.  Does that mean Christians should not read philosophy?

Albert Einstein was Jewish, but did not believe in a personal God.  Does that make all his theories suspect?

I could go down the line, but it is clear to me that Christians need to evaluate ideas based on the evidence that supports or does not support them rather than the faith of who discovers them.  We must continually test ideas found in the culture and ideas found in the Church based on the Logos, Jesus Christ, the Rational Word of God, rather than some  human standard. 

1 Th 5:21  Test everything. Hold on to the good.

1 John 4:1  Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.


wesseldawn - #71096

July 14th 2012

”Dr. Lennox reminds us that while the scripture is truly authoritative, our particular interpretations of it are not always accurate.”

This is the crux of the whole matter! Surely God would have made a way so there was no confusion with interpretation?


Francis - #70920

July 7th 2012

“Science is constantly changing, developing, standing in need of correction, although (we trust) becoming more and more accurate.”

That’s a remarkable statement. I may find the time later to remark further.

But right now, I’m a bit confused about this talk about “interpretation of the foundations and pillars of the earth” and the “moving-earth controversy”.

If the ancients believed the earth was stationary because it had a “foundation” and/or was set on “pillars”, I’d say they just weren’t aware of the Scriptures.

Sure, it’s understandable if people thought the earth was flat. And a superficial reading of the scrolls might lead some to think the earth is like a table-top supported by legs or “pillars”.

Just one of many examples: “he who removes mountains, and they know it not, when he overturns them in his anger; who shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble” Job 9:5-6

But in the very same book just a couple chapters later we read “The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astounded at his rebuke.” Job 26:11.

Even if I were an ancient, I don’t think I could even imagine a literal, physical pillar holding up heaven and the skies. I trust my ancient brain would know the author meant “pillar” figuratively, as the essence of the heavens’ structure and being.

The same holds for “foundation”.

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.” Job 38:4, and

“Then the earth reeled and rocked; the foundations of the heavens trembled and quaked, because he was angry.” 2 Sam 22: 8.

Who in their right mind, ancient or otherwise, would “insist on a literalistic understanding of the foundations and pillars of the earth”?


wesseldawn - #71113

July 15th 2012

In Exodus, pillars (27:10 & 11) are mentioned as being a ‘part of the Tabernacle’, which represented Heaven - so therefore, the pillars are (as Francis mentioned) for us figurative, but literal in a heavenly sense.

“The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.” (Job 26:11) 

What are the pillars ‘of heaven’?

“Him that overcomes will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.” (Rev. 3:12)

“And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.” (Gal. 2:9) 


Francis - #70921

July 7th 2012

I should have better completed my statement that “I trust my ancient brain would know the author meant “pillar” figuratively, as the essence of the heavens’ structure and being” by adding that I would therefore apply the same figurative understanding of “pillars/foundations” for the EARTH. Yes, even if I was living in the time of Moses.

 


Francis - #70948

July 8th 2012

I’m encouraged by the posts here by KevinR and darwin.dissenters.

Even Eddie, with whom I’ve disagreed in prior posts, wrote

“… Christians have tended to speak about the truths of science and the truths of faith in a way that suggests that the truths of science are firm, being grounded in the way the universe is, whereas the truths of faith are less firm … This can lead, by an insidious mental process, to the downgrading of religious truth to merely private taste. This is the hidden danger of NOMA-like thinking, and NOMA-like thinking is the perennial intellectual danger for theistic evolutionists.”

I think I’d say “Amen” to that.          


Jon Garvey - #71027

July 11th 2012

It’s so difficult for us moderns not to think in modern materialist terms, even when we’re trying, as Lennox is, to avoid it.

But consider any sernon you’ve ever heard mentioning God. You’ve heard he is a Father, with a father’s heart. He look upon our weaknesses or sufferings. He hears our prayers. He stoops down to help us. He shelters us in the palm of his hand. Yet not one of the preachers talking about those things would deny that, in spiritual reality, God does not have a heart, eyes, ears, a back or hands. So is it primitive theology? Not at all - they know that man is God’s image, and therefore it is entirely appropriate to reflect his personhood, and even visualise him, in terms of his image. The alternative is to speak misleadingly and incomprehensibly about his essence being open to us etc - conjuring up in C S Lewis’s terms an image of porridge rather than the God we know in Jesus. The metaphors stress the key truths about God.

Now in the Genesis creation account, and the whole OT (not to mention ANE thought in general), the universe is presented as God’s cosmic temple, and the earthly temple as a model of it. That’s what’s important to Hebrew faith, and not whether the sky is solid, the earth built on pillars or turtles or whatever. So just as we talk about God in human terms, why (for exactly the same reasons) would the Bible not talk about his cosmic temple in terms of the earthly equivalent? Why would it not be described as having pillars, a roof, a footstool, and so on - as a reminder of what it is really about?

Primitive cosmology? I don’t think so. Primitive cosmology is looking at the Universe only in terms of what it is made of, and failing to see the truth that it is his temple, and earth as the court in which his worshippers gather. It’s the equivalent of Jesus’s disciple being more impressed with the Jerusalem temple’s materials than with the One who occupied the space within.


Francis - #71103

July 14th 2012

Wesseldawn wrote:

”Dr. Lennox reminds us that while the scripture is truly authoritative, our particular interpretations of it are not always accurate.”

This is the crux of the whole matter! Surely God would have made a way so there was no confusion with interpretation?

 

He did make a way.

It’s called the Church. (Mat 16:18-19; 1 Tim 3:15)


wesseldawn - #71111

July 15th 2012

The ‘church’ has proven itself to be inconsistent (certainly a far cry from infallible)  - so then the church cannot possibly be the answer! Any interpretation that God would produce, would be as infallible as He Himself is!

It’s because human beings have attempted to interpret divine words that there is inconsistentcy but if God is the interpreter, we can learn the true meanings.

 


wesseldawn - #71112

July 15th 2012

sorry - inconsistency


Francis - #71119

July 15th 2012

Wesseldawn,

So, Jesus and Paul were lying, or at least were wrong?

The powers of DEATH SHALL PREVAIL against the church, and

the church is NOT the pillar and bulwark of the truth?

 

Wesseldawn, feel free to respond if you must. However, as I said to Roger, due to constraints on time, space and patience, I don’t foresee responding to you again.

 

God help you. I can’t.


wesseldawn - #71123

July 15th 2012

Francis, use the method you used above with pillars to interpret, you just didn’t go far enough.


Page 1 of 1   1