<<he passage says *FOR* proof (as in with the
intention of providing) and also states the
alternate possibility of providing (for)
*substanciation* (which does not require validity
only other similar assumptions which are viewed in
accordance with); thus the passage does not say that
the bible proves the argument and the comment on the
passage is a mis-interpretation.
"Scripture" implies adding "substance" (like fuel to
the fire?).
>From owner-virus@lucifer.com Fri May 29 14:07:52
1998
>Received: (from majordom@localhost)
> by maxwell.kumo.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30401
> for virus-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 15:04:16
-0600
>X-Authentication-Warning: maxwell.kumo.com:
majordom set sender to owner-virus@lucifer.com using
-f
>From: Sendgirl@aol.com
>Message-ID: <43bb138.356f22a8@aol.com>
>Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 17:03:34 EDT
>To: virus@lucifer.com
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Subject: Re: Re: virus: May 5, 2000 - Bible Code?
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 82
>Sender: owner-virus@lucifer.com
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
>
>
>In a message dated 5/29/98 10:23:44 AM, you wrote:
>
><<This is a hypertext document, with every word,
phrase, or
>sentence linked to a Scripture or a document for
proof or
>substantiation."
>>>
>
>Scripture = proof
>Hmm..................>>
I understand that. I just see absolutely nothing that the bible can prove
except that there are a lot of gullible people in the world.