As a good Missionary Baptist, you are a faithful conveyor of The Defense.
In order to refute an idea or set of beliefs it is good to have a clear understanding of thse beliefs. If one is unable to define such or to misapply beliefs that are not held to attack those beliefs not held, is to destroy a straw man. Not always are straw men built as a pretense to create a beatable opponent, sometimes they are built because one does not care nor is able to correctly identify or define those beliefs. Should you refute the "Missionary Baptist" position what is that to me. Maybe you could give us all the correct definition of a "Missionary Baptist" Maybe not; since you have misapplied it to me, there is a good chance you would misapply beliefs to them also! This is simply Slovenly "Scholarship" at its worst.
What doctrinal issues are you in agreement with in the 54 who worked on the Authorized Version?
Lets ask them, oh that won't work. Maybe you could fill us in what were their beliefs?
What doctrinal issues do you agree with Mollenkott?
God is an abusive parent?
We are all lesbians?
God is a female?
What doctrinal issues do you agree with Kittel?
The jews are not God's chosen people but vermin that should be herded like cattle & gassed?
FF Bruce?
The Bible contains fables?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/20/2005 5:53:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Those Horibly mutilated MS are fit for the Fire.
As a good Missionary Baptist, you are a faithful conveyor of The Defense. Your use of the internet is remarkable, even profound, but the conclusions of these internet theologians are laughable. Tell me -- did you ever attend Slidell Baptist Seminary?
What doctrinal issues are you in agreement with in the 54 who worked on the Authorized Version? Are you thinking that they are somehow in harmony, doctrinally speaking, with the Babtist theology?
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
