“12 years a slave” just won as best movie of 2013 at the oscars. Got me thinking about slavery. Saw this one thread.

Just can't find it. I'm not even 100 percent sure it was discussed. I went through every page but rather quickly.

I'm not wanting to discuss this now but I can't find what the response was if I said something like:”in the past, angels had materialized in order to be seen by men; they had eaten, and some had even married and fathered children. (Gen. 6:4; 19:1-3)”I must have mentioned this in this thread. I know there was a response. Does anyone remember what…

No. I'm sure most wouldn't bother.

I had been referencing the sorites paradox. I should have been mentioning the continuum fallacy.

He SHOULDNT issue unrighteous edicts (1) but he CAN assassinate who he likes since this is his playground (2) so I choose not to vote (3)Ed. Perhaps this is just one of those things were you should “let it be.”–the Beatles.

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 14 2013,17:44)Typically called variation within species. 'Within species' is the key term here.Until a person can define exactly how much an animal would have to change to no longer be of a certain species, it's hard to argue against.

Although I agree, this does have an element of the pile of sand paradox, or other versions of it. If you place one grain of sand on the floor, you do not have a pileIf you add one grain of sand to any amount of sand, this won't effect whether it is a pile or isn't oneSo it seems not amount of sand will constitute a pile of sand. A slightly smaller…[Read more]

Quote So according to you it is honest to say that a woman both came in a dress and was transformed into a dress. Weird analogy. The women came in person and and was a person.

Quote (david @ Nov. 27 2013,16:35)Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 26 2013,17:55)Hi David and especially T8:So much for trying to build doctrine on the Sahidic Coptic for John 1:1   “John 1:18 in the Sahidic Coptic Translation  “God the only Son””  (Link)It is therefore bias to proclaim John 1:1 any differently than in the “AKJV Bible”(74)!God blessEd J ([Read more]

Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 26 2013,17:55)Hi David and especially T8:So much for trying to build doctrine on the Sahidic Coptic for John 1:1   “John 1:18 in the Sahidic Coptic Translation  “God the only Son””  (Link)It is therefore bias to proclaim John 1:1 any differently than in the “AKJV Bible”(74)!God blessEd J (Joshua 22:…[Read more]

Quote I don't think doing the only sensible and logical thing should be considered a “bias”. –mike. Of course it shouldn't. And a trinitarian would say the same thing. To a trinitarian who believes there are countless trinity scriptures, it's very logical to translate the scripture in line with those perceived trinity scriptures. I understand…[Read more]

Quote But it DOESN'T take bias to add an indefinite article where NEEDED – –mikeOff topic, but I don't think you understand what I said. Of course it doesn't take bias to add the article where needed. But that's the whole question isn't it?If you already believe in a trinity, it isn't needed…in fact, it must be rejected. If you are…[Read more]

Quote I ask, are you a polytheist a believer in gods…..silence–bodSo mike. What say you?This really starts of course with a biblical definition of God. Whether we use a standard definition of god, OR we use a biblical all encompassing definition of god, that changes everything. The first step to argument resolution is defining the terms. If…[Read more]

Quote I'm having this discussion in three threads right now. If you'd like to discuss it more, you can join in the discussion here or here.Mike. This is an interesting topic. But I'm having difficulty finding the scattered pages where it is discussed. It should perhaps have its own thread. :-). I'd actually like to comment on this but the two…[Read more]

Quote The Coptics have it right. I once read a blog from a fellow from Greece. He said that although the Trinity is just as big there as it is here, they don't use John 1:1 as a Trinity proof text in Greece…. because Greek speaking people all understand that John never intended to teach that our one and only Almighty God was WITH our one and…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 26 2013,09:02)Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 24 2013,13:46)As Mike mentioned many gods and gave this verse as part of his support:1 Kings 11:33I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molech the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked…[Read more]

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 26 2013,04:31)David the reason there are 200 threads about this topic is because the bottom line of all of them is that there are two who are a god that are for us and all the rest are not for us. It is not determined by the 'a' in the coptic translation. So when you or anyone starts a thread about the 'a' in John 1:1c, you…[Read more]

I'm a little slow. What does any of this have to do with Coptic?Aren't there 200 other threads where this topic is likely being discussed?

Quote (david @ Nov. 22 2013,12:26)Mike, that won't happen.  It would be interesting if it did.  After minutes of research, I am going to confidently say to kerwin:–Coptic was the first language the New Testament was translated into that uses the indefinite article!! And equally important:–Coptic was the only language that uses indefinite a…[Read more]