Slogan/motto:
I will know fully just as I also have been fully known
Reputation:
March 9th, 2011, 09:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CabinetMaker
No more so than you.
Prove that I have done so, pervert.
Quote:
Each and every time you respond to a line or a phrase from a poster and ignore the rest of the post you are guilty of what you accuse me (and others) of.
Prove that I have done so, pervert. Provide one single piece of evidence. You can't.
Okey dokey. Here is what I said originally:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CabinetMaker
Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Ghost, as a self-professed teacher of Scripture, do you believe that exegesis requires those of us that teach Scripture possess a sound knowledge and consideration of the underlying ancient Biblical languages?
Originally Posted by Ghost: No
Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Ghost, do you believe that when one is engaged in a formal theological discussion, such as this one-on-one, that proper exegesis is an essential aspect to make one’s points clear and to illuminate the Scripture being discussed?
Originally Posted by Ghost: No
Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Ghost, perhaps you think formal exegesis is interpreting English translations only? Why? If so, then which English translation should we all be using?
Originally Posted by Ghost: Which Greek translation should we all be using?
If all this other crap is what you wanted to debate, then perhaps you should have not have switched it to Apollinarianism.
Hmmm.. It appears as though Ghost does not believe that a person needs to have sound knowledge of biblical principles to either teach the bible or to hold a discussion with people about the meaning of the bible. This is either a very concerning attitude on Ghost's part or its just Ghost being flippant. I am guessing it is the latter. Ghost has a tendency to become very flippant with people he does not care for and this seems to be the case here.
Here is your response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost
Originally Posted by CabinetMaker Hmmm.. It appears as though Ghost does not believe that a person needs to have sound knowledge of biblical principles to either teach the bible or to hold a discussion with people about the meaning of the bible.
It appears that you cannot read, and are in fact a liar and a slanderer. I never implied or said anything close to your false accusation.
So you responded to the first sentence and ignored the second sentence wherein I said that you were not saying that a person did not need a sound biblical base for teaching and debates. It would appear that you read the first sentence, blew a cork, fired of your typical response and never bothered to actually read the rest of the post.
Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Slogan/motto:
I will know fully just as I also have been fully known
Reputation:
March 9th, 2011, 10:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CabinetMaker
So you responded to the first sentence and ignored the second sentence wherein I said that you were not saying that a person did not need a sound biblical base for teaching and debates. It would appear that you read the first sentence, blew a cork, fired of your typical response and never bothered to actually read the rest of the post.
"It appears that you cannot read, and are in fact a liar and a slanderer. I never implied or said anything close to your false accusation. "
Now who said that...
Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Slogan/motto:
I will know fully just as I also have been fully known
Reputation:
March 9th, 2011, 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CabinetMaker
"It appears that you cannot read, and are in fact a liar and a slanderer. I never implied or said anything close to your false accusation. "
Now who said that...
CM...
You said:
"It appears as though Ghostdoesnotbelievethata personneedsto have sound knowledge of biblical principles to either teach the bible or to hold a discussion with people about the meaning of the bible."
You claimed from my responses to AMR that I don't believe someone needs to have a "sound knowledge of biblical principles" to teach or hold a discussion about the meaning of the Bible.
I NEVER said any such thing, because I DO BELIEVE you must have sound knowledge of biblical principles to teach or hold a discussion about the meaning of the Bible.
"It appears as though Ghostdoesnotbelievethata personneedsto have sound knowledge of biblical principles to either teach the bible or to hold a discussion with people about the meaning of the bible."
You claimed from my responses to AMR that I don't believe someone needs to have a "sound knowledge of biblical principles" to teach or hold a discussion about the meaning of the Bible.
I NEVER said any such thing, because I DO BELIEVE you must have sound knowledge of biblical principles to teach or hold a discussion about the meaning of the Bible.
I never said otherwise.
You are a liar, and an idiot.
That is what I pointed out in the part of the original post that you continue to ignore. It is just that your response to AMR was so poorly worded that it is hard to determine what part of AMR's post you were saying no to. SO, I needled you a bit about the poor wording and then pointed out that you were basically being obtuse.
Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Slogan/motto:
I will know fully just as I also have been fully known
Reputation:
March 9th, 2011, 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CabinetMaker
That is what I pointed out in the part of the original post that you continue to ignore. It is just that your response to AMR was so poorly worded that it is hard to determine what part of AMR's post you were saying no to. SO, I needled you a bit about the poor wording and then pointed out that you were basically being obtuse.
My "no" responses are to his questions. I said "no" to them, because I meant "no".
AMR never asked me the things that you in turn accused me of saying "no" to.
how is the word 'slave' different than the analogy of a 'bond servant'?
A bond servant is a slave...but, the point I was trying to make is not in comparing translations; but that a word does not change meaning from one language to another. If you say a sentence in any language; it still says the same thing.
Actually, words have a semantical range of meaning and concepts can vary from age to age, culture to culture, region to region.
We must find out what it meant to the original audience in their language/thought patterns and then make application by way of principle to our times.
Slavery in biblical times was closer to employee-employer, not black slave vs white lord.
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
My "no" responses are to his questions. I said "no" to them, because I meant "no".
AMR never asked me the things that you in turn accused me of saying "no" to.
Get it?
Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Ghost, as a self-professed teacher of Scripture, do you believe that exegesis requires those of us that teach Scripture possess a sound knowledge and consideration of the underlying ancient Biblical languages?
Originally Posted by Ghost: No[/box]
Were you saying no to exegesis or sound knowledge? Were you trying to say the two are not related?
Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Ghost, do you believe that when one is engaged in a formal theological discussion, such as this one-on-one, that proper exegesis is an essential aspect to make one’s points clear and to illuminate the Scripture being discussed?
Originally Posted by Ghost: No
Here you appear to be saying that proper exegesis is not required to be able to clearly communicate your meaning. Given that exegesis is defined as:
exegesis: a critical interpretation or explication, especially of biblical and other religious texts.
How do you conclude that a critical understanding of the text is not required to clearly make your point?
Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Slogan/motto:
I will know fully just as I also have been fully known
Reputation:
March 9th, 2011, 11:10 AM
CM...
At least you finally admit that you lied when you said...
Quote:
"It appears as though Ghost does not believe that a person needs to have sound knowledge of biblical principles to either teach the bible or to hold a discussion with people about the meaning of the bible."
As clearly stated in AMR's questions, he never asked me what you are accusing me of. That is the point. You twisted and perverted his words and mind to come up with your convoluted statement.
Quote:
Were you saying no to exegesis or sound knowledge? Were you trying to say the two are not related?
The fact that you are asking me this is proof that you cannot read. The context of "sound knowledge" has to do with the ancient biblical languages, not of the Bible.
Quote:
Here you appear to be saying that proper exegesis is not required to be able to clearly communicate your meaning.
Again, that is not what he asked. He asked if proper exegesis was essential to make a point clear or to give illumination to Scripture. The answer was and is "no" it is not necessary.
At least you finally admit that you lied when you said...
As clearly stated in AMR's questions, he never asked me what you are accusing me of. That is the point. You twisted and perverted his words and mind to come up with your convoluted statement.
Still ignoring the part of the original post means you are still guilty of doing what you claim I am doing since I never accused of anything other than being obtuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost
The fact that you are asking me this is proof that you cannot read. The context of "sound knowledge" as to do with the ancient biblical languages, not of the Bible.
Seems as though the two are one in the same given that the Bible is originally written in ancient Biblical languages. As pointed out earlier in this thread, a mis-interpretation of one word when being translated from ancient biblical languages to Olde English lead to several generations of slavery in this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost
Again, that is not what he asked. He asked if proper exegesis was essential to make a point clear or to give illumination to Scripture. The answer was and is "no" it is not necessary.
Again, given the definition of exegesis, how do you conclude that a critical and proper understand of Biblical texts is not required to teach people those same texts?
Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Perhaps you are better suited to have discussions with Squeaky, Letsargue, or Joey Arnold.
It is waste of my time to try and converse with an idiot like you.
{Translation: Once again backed into a corner, Ghost throws up hands and flees the conversation.}
Fair enough. I have better things to do as well.
Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Linear Mode
