Blood, Water and Magicians (1b)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>TILL

>My evidence to the contrary is simple logic.  If ALL of the water

throughout

>all the land of Egypt had been changed into blood, then it would have been

>logically impossible for the magicians to have done the same with their

>enchantments. So until you can explain how that such would be possible, why

>is it not reasonable to see the logistic impossibility as "contrary

>evidence"?  As for the "present matter of the text," what is there to

>conclude?  You have admitted that the text does not say how the Egyptians

>managed to do the same with their enchantments, and you just stated (above)

>that other than for the biblical record you know of no "other unbiased

>validation" of the event.  So why wouldn't the "present matter of the text"

>already be concluded?

>



Greg Mills

After all the water was changed into blood and before the magicians did
likewise, God changed it back into water.  This action was not important to
the point of the story and therefore it was not recorded.  The same thing
can be said about the cattle.  It is not logically impossible for an event
to happen and not be recorded.  Besides we know if the magicians changed it
all into blood then God had to have changed it back and to say so would then
be redundant.

BTW, what does "CCBE" stand for?

• Previous message: Blood, Water and Magicians (1b)
• Next message: Blood, Water and Magicians (1b)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]