Your use of "Barf" is both a contradiction to your shallow claim thatyou do not judge Barth and a clear statement to the fact that you know nothing of what this man believes and the concerns he dealt with in his battle against liberal theologies (among otherconsiderations.) -Original
Total chunky style barnyard.By the same logic, I can call you Jezebel Taylor and Kevin "Dunce Deegan" and and so on.And "ad hom" has no such limitations except here on TT. Ad hom is an attack on the person or words of an individual "rather than an appeal to pure reason" (Webster's Encyclopedic
Frankly, the most ridiculous criticism of Barth I have ever seen.
An absolutely laughable commentary.
Barth's regard for the scripture's far exceeds anything I have read in your post. He appeals to no other source of information. You criticize him for denying the infallibility of scripture
are you calling Webster "carnal?" Incredible. And what carnal quotation is yours?? I don't need to readyour submittal. Mine is quite adequate. This is what Webster's says and thatsettles it. The only reason why - the ONLY reason why you continue to debate this, why you want to elevate
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:45:39 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:35:48 -0500
Comments concerning Webster are correct, I am sure. But I included the only definitionWebster entertains in the referenced work. One simply cannot say that the writing "is just plain stupid" without casting doubt on the intellectual abilities of the author. "Barf" is not the man's name and Judy
The ICBI is defunct, as far as I know. Your network copy skills have manifested themselves with abundance in the following. Hats off to Judy and the party line !
The fact of the matter is that no one offers any real evidence . You knownothing of Barth's personal battle against some
see my comments below. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 15:06:27 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005
Funny, I often get the imprression that he is.
jd-Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 07:55:25 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] NO! Lance (doncha just love it when people speak of themselves i
It would seem
Your heretical ignorance of thefacts of scripturecoupled with your refusal to deal with the issues presented in past postings. The myth that you function off the Holy Spirit in the interpretation of scriptureis herein debunked. Adoptionism is not a bibllical doctrine when applied to Christ.
So
Did you disagree with my assessment of the young man? Whateffort did you makeat saving the kid from a life of filthy conversation, websites that preached thw Word of Judaism while advertising for homosexual affliliations. Be sure to forget to mention that I did all that I could to meet with this
The first reference, highlighted below , is not where you say it is. It does not appear on page 123 of either 1.1. or 1.2.
The Romans reference is not an attack on biblical scripture.
Find thecorrect reference the Dogmatics and I will be glad to put it into the actual context.
Let me
Do you get my point, Perry. Do you actually think that I am making an argument for calling Judy Jezebel ? I think you need to read with a little understanding. Your opening line is something that I thoroughly agree with -- but if your side is going to approve calling namesall in the cause of
Such is my experience as well.
-Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:21:38 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
John, can you explain "heretical ignorance" to me? I
figure outwhat I am trying to accomplish in the above?
Here is an example of JD the "man" Pastoring in another list: "You are a Judaizing punk and an embarrassment to your parents. You have proven that in spades. I no longer believe that you would benefit from man to boy confronta
h in the above?
Here is an example of JD the "man" Pastoring in another list: "You are a Judaizing punk and an embarrassment to your parents. You have proven that in spades. I no longer believe that you would benefit from man to boy confrontation." knpraise@aol.com wrote:
see my co
if youcan figure outwhat I am trying to accomplish in the above?
Here is an example of JD the "man" Pastoring in another list: "You are a Judaizing punk and an embarrassment to your parents. You have proven that in spades. I no longer believe that you would benefit from man to boy
:-)-Original Message-From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 23:24:51 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says'I don't know the man/his work/his character BUT
I typed about ten words' worth of words, copied them and pasted the rest, after
Does this make Barfh qualify as a Monstrous Miscreant?
CD = Church Dogmatics
Like all ancient literature the Old and New Testaments know nothing of the
distinction of fact and value between history on the one hand and saga and legend
on the other (CD I, 2, 509). kd
The biblical writers
By the way, I didn't line out Kevin's comments. That happened somehow in the transmission. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:48:16 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Karl Barth answers back
Does this make Barfh qualify as
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 00:28:29 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think this refers to Israel beginning with John the B. I am open to suggestions. That seems to be the context of (John 1:14ff). the Jews had prophetical foundation to accept Him as the Christ of God and didn't.
who is 'we', Bro? (think about this, Christine:)
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005
3. With the population doubling every few years, we will run out of room and food.
Actually, I recently heard on network news that hte population would slow to "no growth" within the next fifty years.
-Original Message-From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 00:28:29 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think this refers to Israel beginning with John the B. I am open to suggestions. That seems to be the context of (John 1:14ff). the Jews had prophetical foundation to accept Him as the Christ of God and didn't.
who is 'we', Bro? (think about this, Christine:)
On Thu, 01 Dec
World wide. In fact, after we reach that point, the world's populations will actually begin to decrease. -Original Message-From: Terry Clifton wabbits1234@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 13:12:41 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Assuming 500 more
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:30:31 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 09:43:46 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Judy -- my point is this: if you reject the notion thatJesus Christ and God are the same, then you believe that Jesus the man saved mankind - man saving man. An impossibility. Perhaps Bill could make my point clearer or Lance or Gary. -Original Message-From: Judy
Wife 1.0
We got this in an e-mail. We don't know from whom or where. We reprint by popular demand.
Dear Tech Support: Last year I upgraded from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0. I soon noticed that the new program began unexpected child processing that took up a lot
Linda, have you no common sense at all.Probably the very worst of times on TT was experienced because of this matter.It is trash talk and immature on your part to bring it back into the discussion.
John-Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
By the time this happens, the worlds population will have more than doubled - by the way. I am not convinced of global warming and have seen it debatedon two occasions. But I am convinced that birth control is a necessity. -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
Good enough -Original Message-From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 19:45:33 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
I can clear that up in a hot minute. There is God, the Father, and there is
Thiswas my point to Linda. The post in question is an off forum post THAT LINDA SHIELDS brought into TT.Anyone with an ounce of sense knows thatthe moderator or owner have no control when members of the forum decide to incite riot.-Original Message-From: Dean Moore
My first response to this question is "No." How could it matter when no one really has it right?
And I think that I could make a very strong case from this beginning. I would argue that God's love is bigger than our misunderstandings of Him and go on from there.
But, the question isnot Does it
I cannot offer enlightenment to you, Judy. More to the point, you read my comments with a view to opposition and for no other reason -that is apparent.
What bothers me about the "begotten"as used in John 3:16AND 1:14 18 (monogenes) is that is means "unique" and has no reference to his
Judy -- what in the world could you possibly point to in Bill's writingin the most recent posts that cause you to think that he is making such a separation -- or that he is even discussing the use of these two concepts (read:words)? It appears to me that you are just looking for something to
I have read a number of articles concerning the Sonship of Christ as the result of some action associated with His incarnation.
The Apostle John clearly understood Christ to be the Son of God and God at the same time.
Those who disagree find the sonship established with His birth, others see
et al:
You know -- if there is any way we can have continued discussion without the ankst -- me included. If you have not been profited by personal study because of what we do here on TT, shame on you.
The running battle with Deegan gave me the opportunity to go over some old class notes and
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 04:45:28 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:26:04 -0800 Dave
Well, Lance, you did ask for a response !! :-)-Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:36:58 -0600Subject: RE: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Happy Kwanza?
That is such blatant, predictable politically correct liberal-speak!
I have no idea why you ignore the fact that most translaters do not insert the word "being" into their translations. DM
It does not appear to me that you are less dogmatical than I.
I am only saying that linear-passive is the description of this participle AND NO ONE DENIES THAT.
Secondly,
You seem to think that the syntax alone justifies your insertion of the word "being." I believe that context and semantic range of understanding of phrases is necessary to fully understand the intended meaning and to bring it over properly into English. DM
My point exactly And "are being
-Original Message-From: Christine Miller verilysaid@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:48:04 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14
JD wrote:If (a) you do not see babe - maturity as a process and (b) if you do not see that the "practice" as
JD om green. -Original Message-From: Christine Miller verilysaid@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:04:44 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14
I have already defined sanctification: it is a spiritual adoption. When we are sancitified, we
OK -- I quit !!funny stuff, my friend. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:37:24 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.
..Wisdom suggests that somebody needs to do somethin' wise here before Pastor Sloses his
The more you stir crap, the more it stinks :-)-Original Message-From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 10:37:10 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Terry, let me put it in perspective for you.
I also have a sense of humour, Terry Kudos to
Probably the most disappointing time of all, here on TT.
JD-Original Message-From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 08:14:12 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Theology of violence?
But, it seemed good to me to deflect this discussion from
Zzzz...-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 12:42:53 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Terry, let me put it in perspective for you.
John respondsDavid wrote this: Apparently you have not consulted too many grammars. A.T. Robertston in "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament" writes about Hebrews 10:14 in the following way:"But usually the pres. part. is merely descriptive. Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18. There is no
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 12:35:28 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.
redactd 'urban life music', c. 1677
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:18:26 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
rtg doc on
You would have to be completely IGNORANT of God's UTTER DISGUST with the smallest disobedience, to deny imputed righteousness.
A good point.
What do you have in mind when you present the notioin that the "atonement" is limited to believers only?
jd
-Original Message-From: Andrew
cd: Hmm-None withchivalry in the south-No good street preachers anywhere. So you are saying I am no good and I have no chivalry. OK, we will leave it as we are accountable for every word-I have no problem with praying for you-but at least now I understand you-may God bless you Terry.
I find
It is almost -- but not quite - humorous, your inability to converse with me without the put downs. Also, for some reason, when I go down into the body of your post, I cannot singlespace my response unless I write it somewhere else and copy it into the post -- below the "-Original Message
"But everyone who partakesonly of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern goodand evil" (Heb 5:13-14). If (a) you do not see babe - maturity as a process and (b) if you do
You are kidding, of course !! rol !! -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:08:00 -0600Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:Judy on ...wellJudy
I think what Judy would like is to have us discuss issues, not
While you are busy defending yourself , did you get my point? -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 05:28:14 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore
Not
There are a couple of things that could be said about "descriptive duratives" in view of the literal translation of "being sanctified"and all -- I say all -- that Bill had to say on the subject.but first things first -- I couldn't find your reference in Robertson'sGreek grammar.Perhaps a page
You know, I was going to take time to answer two of your longer posts. I saved them for that purpose. But, as it turns out, I realized yesterday that I am talking to a person who defends the Received Text (that would be a greek thingy) while, at the same time, having no regard whatsoever for
First , your last sentence sounds like any number of people I know. Secondly - I am a husband who would defend his wife even to the point of violence. I missed the part where DH spoke to Linda as if she were a whore. Where was that statement? And why are you taking offense at something for which
Am I talking to a Christian or a tough guy? One is the new man and the other, the old man. Which is it Deano. Again, and I fully believe this to be the case, you are using this circumstance to sound tough and threatening. This is about nothing else just macho deano. So get back on
Just to clarify. My Robertson's has a listing of scriptures discussed. Heb 10:10 and 10:14 are not on that list. I am thinking they are a part of a secondary discussion in the book and that is why they are not on the list. I don"t know that but I am giving David the benefit of the doubt. I just
You got it !! -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:45:36 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore
Translation I was gonna but I am NOT able.
[EMAIL
Like I said -- and it is becoming even more obvious: this is not about anything but Dean making it clear that he is the toughest guy on the block. You want to come out here? We can go to the North Gym and roll around on the mat for awhile. I could use a good work out partner. As far as making
You think Dean's "suggestions" indicate finality? I don't. But -- is there anything else to be accomplished ? For me, not after my invite memo to Dean and his wife. I find it interesting that your post was not forthcoming with Dean's "make me" post. but enough said is something I agree with.
My 1934 editionis from Broadman Press as well. The page number was suffienct information, David. Thank you.
jd-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:30:37 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
You are
whatever we've seen of God is visable to anyone else who's looking, even one's lowly wife
this , I believe , is an extremely important statement. I couldn't agree more. "Enlightenment" when used to imply knowledge that is not available to anyone who cares to look is nothing less than mythology
Holiness has everything to do with how you treat people and your manner of speech - among other things. Threatening your opponent with physical violence is hardly a sign of holiness. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov
And what of the rest of His life? What of His death without resistance? How did he deal with those who were about to stone the adultness woman? What was His attitude toward the Roman pagan slim that held the People of God in bondage? When Peter attacked the Roman soldier in the Garden -- what
What ARE we talking about? Dean's life or Dean's theology of violence? -Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:57:10 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.
And what about the rest of Dean's
We all pretty much know what this word means --generally speaking, it is a setting apart as a result of an increased holiness. Because of a multitude of passges expressing the thought that we remain tied to our old man, Eph4:20-24, that we continue to harbor or possess sin I Jo 1:8, that none is
You misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest.
:-)-Original Message-From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:33:03 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
I am thinking about what you said in regards to Rush. There's little doubt about whom Judy considers the "idiot" in our
DM has introduced the possiblity that I am "just plain stupid." And Kevin has used the word "fool" many times. I didn't bother reading your second paragraph.
jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri,
Hey tough guy, it was Linda Shieldswho open the door to this thread -- not DH.
-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:01:31 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?
- Original
Judy, My identification is with the Lord. He is my righteousness. It is his faith to which I am attached.Judgments to the contrary are made out of ignorance, not fact. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent:
It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Perry -- was it not LindaShields who asked about the sexual practices of the Mormons? I think this was in reference to the Mormon underwear thing. I did not read the thread that carefullybecause I thought it vulgar on herpart. And now we have Dean pretending that he is tough enough to kick
Paul did much the same thing. -Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:54:50 -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore
cd: I had the set-I see a lost man trying
Judy, I spoke of a single edition, not a single-man made edition. I don't care how many translatedit, and neither do you. the KJV is a production of the will and purpose of mankind. It is a man-made translation. But throw out the MSS. That is certainly your preference. -Original
I have never said this:You have said-There is no difference between the saved and the lost regarding sin.-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:19:17 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
-
I think that Linda did not take the same level of offense to this as you. Unlike Perry -- I do not understand your outrage. Linda is not your wife. I see this only as an opportunity for tough guy Deano getting a chance to "righteously" express his old nature. If you want to ignore the fact thatDH
Not at all. Both are sinners. But there is a big difference between the two.
jd-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:04:59 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
- Original Message -
By the way, hats off to Linda for her gracious apology.
John
I'm ignoring you, can't you tell?
jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:23:17 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?
7. One who sows discord among
Do you see that you argue for not knowing while using a example you believe illustrates that you do, in fact, know?
If we do not know, the correct answer to your final question would be "yes, I could make that argument."
But, back to the 10:14 question -- I do not think it fair to illustrate
:-)-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:36:17 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
I introduced the ABSURD possibility that you were being "just plain stupid" in a particular conclusion. The point
See John in green.
- Original Message -
From:
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/23/2005 11:30:49 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD
-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 23 Nov
Will power, new years resolutions, turning over a new leaf, reformationwon't do it. Only by Repentance the Power of a resurrected life can we overcome the Old man. Right JD?
Absolutely. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25
I am supposed to be at the shop. But the Texas game istoo big a temptation.
This is a good post and I want to continue the thread up until the time we start in on each other :-)
And I am praying for your ability to take advantage of the doors that seem to be opening for you at the
So where is your chapter and versepushing the KJV onto everyone and tossing the greek MSS out the window. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:40:46 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Chapter
Besides nobody "DISGARDS" anything! You got to be kidding !!
You and Judy are the most anti-theologicans I have ever seen. Male and female created He them.
jd
-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:52:35 -0800
I do not know why you go off on such a tangent? You are the one who believes this if you believe that the KJV translation "is the only one for me," What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV? Which edition of the received text IS the correct one and why did it take a Dutch Catholic so
it is not doubt that you see. It is distrust. For example -- you speak ofthe KJV as being 7 times purified or some such nonsense. And you give the reader a list of7bibles beginning with Wycliffe and ending with the KJV. You conveniently leave off the Bishop Bible -- you know , the one of which
And before 1384 ?? All the way back to the beginning. What do we have there interms of authorized bibles? Huh Mr Duh ? You are going to run out of answers, here, pretty quick, pal. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005
Kevin , do you know how a translation is created? It is not just a fresh English translationof a set of greek MSS. Not at all. Rather, it is includes a comparison of previous English translations.As a result, we expect to see similaritiesbetween some of the translations. but more than that -- I
LOL :--)))-Original Message-From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:55:31 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance Mur says: I have a sense of DaveH that he ain't got it in 'em
I would like to apologize to everyone for not being offended.
Judy -- invective is your middle name when it comes to "communicating" with the opposition. Ditto Deegan. Its not even close. Youaskd for examples when, in fact, you are asking us to convince you that we are right. Impossible. And you have taken your cue from Terry quite well. Now we can expect
You have misrepresented the facts for the sake of a mythology - 7 instead of 8 - and you got busted (again - its so easy) and your response is to ignore the facts and try to develop yet another thread . Nice try, but no cigar.
Jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan
Actually, you ran out of answers much quicker than I thought !!! :-)
jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:34:25 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Read the other post... duh[EMAIL
If you can't understand what I wrote, just say so.It makes you look rather ridiculous to pretend to be dealing with the point I actually made about Bill's stated opinion when, in fact, you aren't.
jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
1201 - 1300 of 6592 matches
Mail list logo
