john82wa

That website is actually a site where you can pay individuals to pull the part and ship it to you. Each individual is also reviewed so you can get a good idea if they are professional and more importantly, get the item pulled and sent to you as advertised. I have a guy looking into one of the fenders and hood for me. I can let you know how it all works out - certainly a good alternative to those who don't have may starquests around them.

If it sat for three days and now nothing, you may need to check your grounds. There are a few places that need TLC in regard to the grounding. Same website that importwarrior directed you to but different write up. http://starquest.i-x...topic.php?t=916 ... just read that you mentioned the lights are working so this wont fix your problem, but a good idea to address either way

What would be great is if you could produce reproduction body parts from the rendering - fenders, hoods, factory spoilers, the works.

Text me if your willing to sell them. 253-306-6649 Thank you

http://row52.com/Vehicle/Index/JJ3CC54N9KZ035138

Was trying to get the hard pipe and intercooler kit from him but have noticed he's no longer there. I tried to do a search of the forum to find out what happened but it turned up nothing. IS he still doing our cars??

Will take the Hard Pipes if still available!! Can send funds via Paypal. Thanks

DSM is looking into shipping, but more than likely the shipping will be too great. So if anyone has any of the items listed and is located up here in my little corner of the Pacific Northwest, please let me know. Looks like I could use a hood as well. Thanks

PM sent

Im in need of a good rust/dent free front passenger fender and a header panel (body panel between the headlamps) in good condition. This would be for a widebody. Im in Tacoma, WA Thanks!!

Someone took a loot at it - very steep price and apparently doesnt run right

Yup - that would be the one and here was my email question: I have a vehicle that I would like to stay close to the original color and I noticed you can mix custom colors. What would you need to get the proper color and is there an extra cost for that process. Further, do I have the ability to lay decals over on top or will they not adhere? One more question, I have the clear coat peeling on the hood and was wondering if the dip will hide the imperfection or would it highlight it? Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions! After reading Burtons 2 cents, I think I will skip out on this deal anyways even though it would be purely a cosmetic band-aid

Not very good business - still waiting to hear back from them on my questions I sent them via email......still waiting.....still.....waiting

Will do and thank you

In response to imwii. NOT ignoring you BOHO, just already knew of this article and its interesting in the outlook of a Lawyer in regards to the Gospel: Is Simon Greenleaf Still Relevant? By Robert R. Edwards, B.A., B.S., J.D. Part I SIMON GREENLEAF DIED October 6, 1853. Born of Jewish descent on December 5, 1783, Greenleaf was an agnostic, some say atheist, who believed the resurrection of Jesus Christ was either a hoax or a myth. No stranger to truth, and to the proof of the truth, Greenleaf was a principal founder of the Harvard Law School and a world-renowned expert on evidence.1 Challenged by one of his students one day to “consider the evidence” for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Greenleaf set out to disprove it, but ended up concluding that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was indeed fact, not fiction. Being a man of conviction and reason, and in accordance with his conclusions, Greenleaf converted from Agnosticism to Christianity. His life and works went on to inspire such scholars as John Warwick Montgomery, Josh McDowell, Ross Clifford and Lee Strobel. But is Simon Greenleaf still relevant today? Greenleaf’s most famous apologetic is an essay entitled, Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice.2 Therein, Greenleaf applied the evidentiary rules of his day to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and concluded that the admissible evidence emitted thereby was sufficient to prove in any fair court of law that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was indeed fact—not hoax, myth or fiction. In short, Greenleaf reasoned that copies of the original Gospels extant (i.e., known to be in existence) in his time were at least as authentic as other works of antiquity the authenticity of which was acceptable in courts of law; that the veracity of the testimonies contained therein was demonstrable by internal and external examination (i.e., by examining the consistencies and resolving the paradoxes contained between them, and by comparing the Gospel accounts to corroborating works of other known writers of the time, such as Tacitus, Josephus and Seutonius, etc.); and that the most plausible, the most reasonable, conclusion to be drawn therefrom was that Jesus Christ not only lived and died, but that he arose again from the grave. Why else, Greenleaf surmised, would twelve disciples (not to mention the Apostle Paul) give up everything they had or could possibly ever have had on this earth, all, but for John,3 to face an executioner’s death? Certainly no man would do so for a lie, let alone all twelve. At the suggestion of a colleague, I decided to apply the more modern 2011 Federal Rules of Evidence to the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament to see if they could still withstand judicial scrutiny and warrant the same conclusion drawn by Greenleaf. In a court of law, a judge would consider first whether copies of the Gospels in existence today would be admissible in evidence in accordance with the applicable rules of evidence, then, assuming they were admissible, we as jurors would determine how much weight to give or credibility to assign the testimonies of the witnesses contained therein. Finally we would determine what conclusion(s) logically follow from the greater weight of all the evidence emitted by the Gospels, as amplified by the balance of the other New Testament books at our disposal. Part II For our present purposes, for determining whether Simon Greenleaf is still relevant today, I am going to take the process in reverse. After all, one cannot gauge the “relevance” of Greenleaf’s argument without knowing his argument first. Then we will examine whether discoveries since his time have made more reliable or less reliable the legal “authenticity” of the documents on which he relied. The more reliable our current evidence as to authenticity, the more relevant Greenleaf’s argument today.4 The less reliable our evidence, the less relevant his argument. Included in our day, of course, are copies of all documents available to Greenleaf in his day, provided that none has been destroyed. To the best of my knowledge, none has. To the contrary, and as further discussed in Part III below, we have even more evidence today for the authenticity of the Gospels available to Greenleaf than Greenleaf had in his own day. With that in mind, let’s consider his argument. Greenleaf began by postulating a number of lengthy, logical and legal premises which, for ease of reading, I have condensed into 17 shorter premises and relegated to an endnote. 5 Perhaps Greenleaf encapsulated them best, however, when he wrote at the outset of his essay that: [t]he docility which true philosophy requires of her disciples is not a spirit of servility, or the surrender of the reason and judgment to whatsoever the teacher must inculcate, but it is a mind free from all pride of opinion, not hostile to the truth sought for, willing to pursue the inquiry, and impartiality to weigh the arguments and evidence, and to acquiescence in the judgment of right reason. From these premises, and from the evidence for the authenticity of the copies of the Gospels known to exist in his time, Greenleaf concludes his argument by inviting his readers kindly to consider objectively the consequences and the implications of the lives the Evangelists lived: Lives lived under the greatest discouragements in the face of the most appalling terrors, their master having recently perished as a malefactor by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teaching of his disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like, heroic constancy, patience and unclenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually rose from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come… Now, though, in a single instance, a good man may fall, when under strong temptations, yet he is not found persisting, for years, in deliberated falsehood, asserted with the most solemn appeals to God, without the slightest temptation or motive, and against all the opposing interests which reign in the human breast. If, on the contrary, they are supposed to have been bad men, it is incredible that such men should have chosen this form of imposture; enjoining, as it does, unfeigned repentance, the utter forsaking and abhorrence of all falsehood and of every other sin, the practice of daily self-denial, self-abasement and self-sacrifice, the crucifixion of the flesh with all its earthly appetites and desires, indifference to the honors, and hearty contempt of the vanities of the world; and inculcating perfect purity of heart and life, and intercourse of the soul with heaven. It is incredible, that bad men should invent falsehoods, to promote the religion of the God of truth. The supposition is suicidal. If they did believe in a future state of retribution, a heaven and a hell hereafter, they took the most certain course, if false witnesses, to secure the latter for their portion. And if, still being bad men, they did not believe in future punishment, how came they to invent [that] which was to destroy all their prospects of worldly honor and happiness, and to insure their misery in this life? From these absurdities there is no escape, but in the perfect conviction and admission that they were good men, testifying to that which they had carefully observed and considered, and well knew to be true. Near the end of his life, Greenleaf concluded in correspondence with the American Bible Society, Cambridge, November 6, 1852, as follows: Of the Divine character of the Bible, I think, no man who deals honestly with his own mind and heart can entertain a reasonable doubt. For myself, I must say, that having for many years made the evidences of Christianity the subject of close study, the result has been a firm and increasing conviction of the authenticity and plenary inspiration of the Bible. It is indeed the Word of God.6 Part III But is Greenleaf still relevant today? Would existing copies of the Gospels (and the rest of the New Testament) be admissible in evidence today in accordance with the 2011 Federal Rules of Evidence that govern every federal trial court in America? Or have archeology and the evolution of legal thought rendered his conclusions incredible or irrelevant because they are based on documents no longer sufficiently authenticated to be admissible in evidence? We must begin with the fact that copies of lost original documents are admitted into evidence all the time.7 Rule 1003 (of the Federal Rules of Evidence) allows for the admissibility of duplicates, or copies, unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. Thus, as in Greenleaf’s day, the burden to preclude admission of a copy falls first on the party objecting to its admissibility, not on the party offering it into evidence. Even so, I know of no one, let alone anyone of scholarly import, who questions whether the “original” Gospels actually existed, i.e., whether the copies we have today trace back to an original source or, more precisely, four original sources. There is too much similarity between the copies we have today to conclude that they emanated from anything other than an original source. Scholars refer to these originals as the “autographs.” Presuming they existed, as the overwhelming weight of scholarship and evidence suggest, then they were (as originals) necessarily “authentic,” by definition. One cannot challenge the “authenticity” of something acknowledged to be an original. Given that, to the best of our present knowledge, no copies of the originals still exist, we must next determine whether the copies of the originals we do have are sufficiently “authentic” to be admitted into evidence pursuant to the 2011 Federal Rules of Evidence. The particular Rule implicated [Rule 901] is markedly broad, meaning it provides wide latitude for the admissibility of documents. More specifically, and merely by way of illustration, Rule 901( (8) provides that ancient documents are sufficiently authentic to be admissible if they are (1) in such a condition as to create no suspicion concerning their authenticity; (2) in a place where, if authentic, they would be expected to be; and (3) have been in existence 20 years or more at the time they are offered into evidence. The data in favor of the authenticity of New Testament manuscript copies we have today (including the Gospels) are so overwhelming that I can only scratch the surface and otherwise refer the reader to other works or websites by endnote.8 The two factors on which I will rely to “scratch that surface,” however, are the proximity of the copies to the originals in time (i.e., how old the earliest copies are) and the number of copies in existence today. We will then compare those factors to other works of antiquity. These two factors are the most significant because (1) as lawyers and historians will tell you, the closer a document is in time to the event it describes, the more reliable it is; and (2) the more copies we have of those documents, the better we can compare them to each other and thus gauge their comparison to an “original.” As long ago as 1943, having reviewed the information available to him at his time, and drawing from the conclusion reached by Sir Frederic Kenyon, the late Professor F.F. Bruce concluded: the interval…between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, especially when compared to the dates of academically accepted Historical documents such as those detailing Roman History. The last foundation for any doubt that the scripts of the Old and New Testaments have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of those works may now be finally established and proved, probably to be the most authentic historical documents known to man.9 But even more has been discovered since 1943. In an article published March 5, 2007, Discovery News Channel contributor, Jennifer Viegas, reported that the oldest known manuscript copies of the Gospels of Luke and John date from 175-225 A.D., and were found in 1952 at Pabau, Egypt, near the ancient Dishna headquarters of the Pachomian order of monks.10 They are presently housed in the Vatican where they are on display and available for scholarly review.11 Saint Pachomius was born circa 292 A.D. in the Upper Thedaid in Egypt. In circa 318 A.D., he helped build a monastery on the banks of the Nile at Tabenniski. In a short time, about 100 others had joined him and in 320 A.D. he organized them on principles of communal living. So renowned did he and his monks become, that he eventually established ten other monasteries for men and two nunneries for women. Before his death in 346 A.D., there were 7000 monks in his various houses. While St. Anthony is often regarded as the founder of monasticism, it was really St. Pachomius who founded the Christian monastic movement.12 It is no wonder that it is in his monasteries that we find the oldest known copies of two of the four Gospels. A monastery is precisely the type of place where we should expect to find them. Meanwhile, the oldest extant fragment of Mark (contained in “Papyrus 45,” along with parts of Matthew, Luke and John) dates to no later than 250 A.D,13 and the oldest extant manuscript fragment of Matthew (i.e., the Magalene Manuscript fragments of Matthew 26) purports to coexist with the original.14 Papyrus 45 was also found in Egypt, and is currently housed at the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, Ireland, except for one leaf containing Matthew 25:41-26:39, which is housed at the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek in Vienna.15 Historically speaking, these copies are remarkably close in time to the originals of which they purport to be copies. With respect to number, we have in our possession today over 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament (of which the Gospels are the first four books), another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions, giving us more than 24,000 extant manuscript copies of at least portions of the New Testament.16 Of those, 230 manuscript portions pre-date 600 A.D., consisting of 192 Greek New Testament manuscripts, five Greek lectionaries containing scripture, and 33 translations of the Greek New Testament.17 Each of these manuscripts can be, and has been, compared with the others for consistency. Therefore, even though we do not have the originals, the sheer number of consistent manuscript copies we do have weighs heavily in favor of their authenticity as accurate copies of the originals. The fact that they have been found throughout the Middle East and the known world as of the dates on which they purport to have been written is consistent with the Great Commission where, in Matthew 28:16-20, Christ tells his disciples to go into “all the world” preaching the gospel, or “good news,” of eternal life through his death and resurrection. Compare the above with other works of antiquity, the authenticity of which few, if any, think to question. Aristotle lived from 384 to 322 B.C. The earliest manuscript copies of his works, or parts thereof,18 date from 1100 A.D, leaving over 1,400 years between the dates on which he penned the originals and the date of the earliest known copies. Moreover, we have only five of those copies. Caesar lived from 100 to 44 B.C. The earliest manuscript copies of his original writings date from 900 A.D, leaving almost 1,000 years between the originals and the copies. Still, we have just ten. Herodotus lived from 480 to 425 B.C. The earliest of his manuscripts date from 900 A.D., leaving over 1,300 years between the originals and their copies. We have eight of those manuscripts. Homer lived circa 900 B.C. The earliest of his manuscripts extant today dates from 400 B.C., leaving some 500 years in between. We have a total of 643. Plato lived from 427 to 347 B.C. We have seven manuscript copies of his original works, dating around 900 A.D. That leaves more than 1,200 years between his life and the date of the earliest known manuscript copy of his works. Thucydides lived between 460 and 400 B.C. We have eight copies of his manuscripts dating back to around 900 A.D., leaving 1,300 years between his life and the earliest existing copy of his works. Seutonius lived from 75 A.D. to 160 A.D. Eight manuscript copies of his works are extant, the earliest of which dates to 950 A.D., almost 800 years after his death. And, even with the Quran, while the number of extant manuscripts is a matter of debate, the earliest known manuscript dates to 750 A.D., 100 years after the original was written in circa 650 A.D. In light of the above, any objection to Greenleaf’s relevance today should, and must necessarily be, summarily denied. He is as credible and relevant today, perhaps even more so, as he was in his own day because the evidence for the authenticity of the documents on which he based his argument is more conclusive today than it was then. Accordingly, if one is to “pick him apart,” one must pick him apart on his argument, not his evidence. (Why would all twelve die for a lie, let alone the millions who have died in their footsteps?). There is a certain, sardonic irony in the fact that anyone who would dare to do so, anyone who would dare challenge Greenleaf to a debate even in our modern-day courts of law, would first have to take the witness stand himself (or through “expert” proxy), raise his right hand and place his left hand upon the Bible the authenticity of which he denies, then proceed to deny the authenticity of that on which his credibility is based. That makes me smile. Footnote 1In 1833, Greenleaf acceded to the Royall Professorship at Harvard University and, in 1846, he succeeded Judge (later Justice) Joseph Story as Dane Professor of Law at Harvard. Greenleaf contributed extensively to the development of the Harvard Law School, including expansion of the Harvard Law Library. 2 Greenleaf’s two most famous works are The Testimony of the Evangelists, written in 1847, and his Treatise on Evidence, written between 1844 and 1846. The latter is considered by many to be the greatest treatise on evidence ever written. 3 The disciple John was exiled to the island of Patmos, where he died circa 90 A.D. 4This is provided, of course, there is no material inconsistency between copies of the Gospels and other New Testament books available to Greenleaf in his day and copies of the same books available to us in ours. I have found none. To the contrary, the additional copies discovered since his day are consistent with those on which Greenleaf relied, thereby bolstering their authenticity by function of numerical probability, as further discussed in Part III, below. 5According to Professor Greenleaf, we must: , “a sentence from him [Pilate] was necessary before they could proceed to the execution of Jesus; and we know that the power of life and death was usually vested in the Roman governor. Our Savior was treated with derision; and this we know to have been a customary practice at that time, previous to the execution of criminals, and during the time of it. Pilate scourged Jesus before he gave him up to be crucified. We know from ancient authors, that this was a very usual practice among Romans. The accounts of an execution generally run in this form: he was stripped, whipped, and beheaded or executed. According to the evangelists, his accusation was written on the top of the cross; and we learn from Suetonius and others, that the crime of the person to be executed was affixed to the instrument of his punishment. According to the evangelists, this accusation was written in three different languages; and we know from Josephus that it was quite common in Jerusalem to have all public advertisements written in this manner. According to the evangelists, Jesus had to bear his cross; and we know from other sources of information, that this was the constant practice of those times. According to the evangelists, the body of Jesus was given up to be buried at the request of friends. We know that, unless the criminal was infamous, this was the law or the custom with all Roman governors." 6See A Cloud of Witnesses, by Stephen Abbott Northrop, D.D., (Portland, Oregon: American Heritage Ministries, 1987), p. 198. 7At some point I should dispense with any “objection” that the Gospels are “hearsay.” I choose to do so by endnote, in part, because only the uninformed or insincere would raise a “hearsay” objection to the admissibility of the Gospels. First of all, all written documents are “hearsay,” by definition. Therefore, if “hearsay” was a sufficient objection to preclude consideration of all written documents, then no document could ever be admitted into evidence, not even an original. Second, the federal “hearsay” rule has been virtually swallowed up by its 29 exceptions, the last of which (Rule 807) provides a “residual exception” by which the court can admit hearsay that doesn’t meet any of the 28 other exceptions but falls within the “spirit” of the hearsay rules and its exceptions. Third, and most importantly, Rule 803 (16) expressly excepts from the application of “hearsay,” “statements in a document in existence twenty years or more the authenticity of which is established.” I address the issue of “authenticity” in the text and submit it is the only prerequisite to the admissibility into evidence of extant copies of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. 8Among other things, Greenleaf’s analysis predated by a hundred years the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which validated extant excerpts from the Old Testament as quoted in extant copies of the New Testament, including the four Gospels.

Boho - sorry, I completely missed your post as I was going back and forth. I will try to answer that as best as I can. I certainly don't have all the answers and don't pretend to, but I will certainly re-read and post an in depth response. And no question is elementary in my opinion because if it was, im just making it out of pre-school.

2) Was it still dark out: What is the transition of a sunrise? Sunrise occurs before the Sun actually reaches the horizon because the Sun's image is refracted by the Earth's atmosphere. The average amount of refraction is 34 arcminutes, though this amount varies based on atmospheric conditions. This one is just petty. In laymans terms, it starts at dark and transitions to full light. All three verses say early morning. 3) Did Mary Magdalene tell any men about the tomb? 3 YES, 1 NO. Grange picked verse 8 to quote saying they did not say anything to anyone BUT if you keep reading here is what verse 10 says: MARK 16:10 She went to the disciples, who were grieving and weeping, and told them what had happened. 4) Did she go back to the tomb with any of them? The discovery of the empty tomb and the various resurrection appearances are presented with different emphases in each of the four Gospels. The book of Matthew had the focus of showing the fulfilled prophecies of the old testament and on the Jewish leaders trying to discredit the resurrection (Matthew 28:11-15) in which he did immediately after Mary's encounter with Jesus. The book of Mark emphasizes on something completely different because he was writing to the roman church so he could leave out things such as who Isaiah was (for example). Mark goes into detail showing Jesus as the one who ultimately serves others and goes through his suffering. The book of Luke's emphasis was to catalog the life of Jesus Christ's life from eyewitnesses. Book of John is differing from the first three (synoptic gospels) because he uses theological content to help understand & establish faith. My point is they all were telling different parts of this account. If you lay all four books down over on top of one another, you get a full account of that time. Mary did not immediately go to Galilee and this is something that is understood by compiling the books for the whole account and all theologians understand this but for some reason, Grange ignores this. Okay, im done for the night, I said I was but couldn't sleep so I figured I would start tackling this now. But the first three that I did is exactly what I was talking about in regards to what Grange does. He tries to find the slightest difference that contradict each other and makes it something that its not and misleads. By the way, I was talking about quoting Grange and that HE uses the bible and takes things out of context, not you. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I wont go through every single one - but I will surely go through a few tomorrow. It's quite late, but again, I certainly will.

lol, just because you pointed out something about a gentleman and his discredit by the scientific community, that doesn't change what your reference is. He is known to pick and pull verses and fit it into his own context, if your not willing to understand that, then who is being biased? I merely pointed out your reference is not all up to par either. So your accusation of 'deny deny deny' has nothing to do with it one bit. In regards to your comment on 'trying to understand', you are absolutely correct when it regards someone slandering the bible and using things out of context because that holds no ground with me - its just not true. How can you hold value to his writings when he does that? When our previous discussions revolved around science, then I was certainly all ears and enjoyed the discussion very much. By the way, my being apart of this discussion has nothing to do with earning brownie points from anyone, so its okay if I don't please you or anyone else. Please dont take that the wrong way. Im just a part of the discussion

Sounds interesting! They mix custom colors as well and I just shot them an email asking if there can be decals (Replacement stickers that Burton sells) laid over the top. Not sure how they would adhere to it....?

The reason I mentioned vomit is because for some reason you believe that the Holy Bible should be able to stand on each verse alone. With that mentality, you will never see the full message and is completely irrational with that kind of approach. Thank God, you are not a news reporter because not a single person could have an honest interview with you because one single sentence could very easily be pulled and twisted out of context. Your quotes from Danger simply does not tell the whole story of the Bible. Not by a long shot. You look at my life verse Jeremiah 29:11 "For I know the plans I have for you," says the Lord. "They are plans for good and not for disaster, to give you future and a hope." This verse makes it seem all good and dandy but when you read the full chapter - it clearly shows there are steps you must do. That goes exactly in line with the previous comment on thinking everything is 'all good' because we believers think 'God will take care of everything'. You simply can not do this and the very notion that you think you can, clearly shows you have not researched the bible. Another example is Job 16:7 "O God, you have ground me down and devastated my familiy." This is a cry from Job as he is responding to Eliphaz. IF you actualy read the book of Job, you will see that it was Satan and not God. But yet there is Atheist out there that take this verse and try to say that God did this to Job ect ect ect. Not true. This Theodore Drange is NOTORIOUS for doing this. It's easy to cut out parts of the Bible for ones agenda and his agenda is purely to discredit and slander it. Dranger does not even understand the concept of free will and he dances around the subject like you wouldn't believe. Free will is very important to understand - you must have this knowledge to understand the stories of the bible, Satan, and God's will. I highly recommend that you dont lean on this mans work until you do your own research about it and read each book in its entirety. BTW, free will is explained throughout the bible in several areas. Understanding free will, Gods will as well as the idea of living in the flesh will you understand why pain and suffering happen in this world. After all - this is why this thread was created. To find out about God and Satan. We have tried to explain it to no avail and maybe its not us that needs to be the ones to explain it. I am sure though that in due time it will become clear as day. At least I know that myself and the many other individuals on this thread will certainly continue to pray for you guys. Not because you have done anything wrong, but because I wish for the absolute best for everyone and living life with Christ is something I can't put into words and it's something I just wish/pray that everyone gets to experience. God bless!

lol, rub it in Burton. We had a 2000 Land Rover Discovery with rear jump seats and it blew a head so we sold it. We got about 15 mpg but man, the thing was a beast and it lasted up to 167k. Would have gone that route again, but fuel economy was more of a concern this go round and of course...need the space for a stroller.

It's like vomit but only worse

Thanks for the help - ended up getting the Mazda MPV. I noticed when I got there that the check engine light did not illuminate when you click the key over. Go figure it had a code of Cylinder 1 missfire. Van ran absolutely perfect and worked him down in price when he said not to come down (3 hour drive) if we had plans to negotiate price. I guess he wasn't expecting someone to catch the missing light in the dash or he was just as suprised as I was... Hopefully it treats us well With us having another vehicle, I don't have to rely on the Quest as vehicle #2. That means the fun can begin and I can start tearing it down without worrying about transportation!!! But im very sad to say that I am an official minivan owner....

There is several things wrong with what Chip quoted and it is incredibly misleading in regards to what the texts are. But to the sounds of it Imwii, your argument states that the bible is irrelevant in its entirety. If you want me to explain what Chip put down I will or if you prefer I just PM him then I can do that. I don't want to ruffle the feathers of anyone so you decide. In regards to other religions and there prophecies, I would be inclined to ask how many prophecies came true of each said religion and compare between those of the christian faith. I think there would be an overwhelming difference but I am not well informed about them so I can't answer that. It seems your argument goes much deeper than a discussion and I wish I knew why. The bible does have significant evidence - your argument is how those things came to be (such as the Red Sea). The chariots are a piece of evidence without a doubt, but I know it doesn't 'prove' the story to be correct, but evidence nonetheless. It is starting to sound a bit like a court room. It's like an innocent man going to jail and spending years in prison only to be exonerated because of a new discovery called DNA.