Posted: Apr 25, 2017 4:37 pm
by Thomas Eshuis
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Could you then answer my question or link to the post where you think you answered it?
Why do you think the 4 or 5 mentions of the OT still being valid, in the bible, is not a lot?

I probably didn't answer it because it is irrelevant.

It might be to you, it isn't to me.

PensivePenny wrote: "A lot" is as relative term.

It has a distinct implication that you'd expect more.
I am wondering why.

PensivePenny wrote: Did you think it was meant to be a scientific claim? I just expected there would have been more. That's all.

I wonder why.

PensivePenny wrote:Why, what did you read into it?

Exactly what you just said, that you're expecting more and I want to know why you'd expect that.