RE: [TruthTalk] Separation

[Kevin Deegan]

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/separate/bibdocse.htmChurch history has proven again and again that separation is the only solution to apostasy. There is not an instance in all of church history where a denomination has departed from the Word of God and then some time later returned to a more solid Biblical position. Sad but true, the only effective answer is to come out from among them and be separate.   Dr. John Whitcomb has said it this way: The only possible way to perpetuate His truth is to separate it from all forms of error and compromise. A refusal to recognize this fundamental fact is the fatal blunder of modern ecclesiastical ecumenism in all its
 forms, including evangelical ecumenism. Truth cannot be perpetuated through compromise and compromise cannot be avoided without separation. This is a formula which God’s people have discovered through centuries of sad experience with the weakness of fallen human nature in the presence of “the god of this world,” and especially through the direct teachings of God’s Word (Christ, Our Pattern and Plan, p. 14).   F.B.Meyer has said, There is not a single hero or saint, whose name sparkles on the inspired page, who moved his times from within: All, without exception, have raised the cry, "Let us go forth without the camp"; and have joined the constant stream of martyrs, confessors, prophets, and saints, of which the world was not worthy, but who can trace their kinship to Him of whom it is written, "He suffered without the gate."Dr. G. Campbell Morgan also spoke of the urgent need for separation: There is a toleration which is treachery. There is a peace which issues in paralysis. There are hours when the church must say NO to those who should ask communion with her, in the doing of her work, upon the basis of compromise. Such standing aloof may produce ostracism and persecution; but it will maintain power and influence. If the Church of God in the cities of today were aloof from the maxims of the age, separated from the materialistic philosophies of the schools, bearing her witness alone to the all-sufficiency of Christ, and the perfection of His salvation, even though persecuted and ostracized and bruised, it would be to her that men would look in the hour of their heartbreak and sorrow and national need. The reason why men do not look to the church today is that she has destroyed her own influence by compromise.Kevin Deegan
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Call it what you want butI see it as Gods Commands to a christian to keep themselves pure.   It is taught in the OT  the New.2 Co 6 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them,
 and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.God instructs believers to "try the Spirits." (1 John 4:1-6) Do not give a false teacher hospitality. (2 John 9-11) Watch or be on guard for false teachers and regularly warn the congregation of them . (Act 20:26-32)MARK and avoid false teachers. (Rom. 16:17-19) Jesus warned us against embrasing false teachers. (Matt. 7:13-23)Let false teachers be accursed. (Gal. 1:6-11) Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14-17)“Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22)Obey not their word and have no company with them. (2 Thess. 3:13-15)(IT is a COMMAND not a suggestion) Withdraw from those who will not follow Paul's teaching. (2 Thess.
 3:6) “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is Eph 5   Watch ye, stand fast in the faithShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Your evangelization method seems to be “Divide and Conquer.” How’s it working for you? izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Monday, December 05, 2005 1:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] JUDY ASKS: Is Jesus..the figment of my (Judy is also 'some theologian') prolific imagination?  Many of the 

RE: [TruthTalk] Separation

[Kevin Deegan]

The prince of preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, in his statement as to why he separated from the London Baptist Association in 1888 wrote, “Complicity with error will take from the best of men the power to enter any successful protest against it. If any body of believers had errorists among them, but were resolute to deal with them in the name of the Lord, all might come right; but confederacies founded upon the principle that all may enter, whatever views they hold, are based upon disloyalty to the truth of God. If truth is optional, error is justifiable.”This was called the DOWNGRADE  http://www.tecmalta.org/tft351.htm  http://www.spurgeon.org/downgrd.htm  Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/separate/bibdocse.htmChurch history has proven again and again that separation is the only solution to apostasy. There is not an instance in all of church history where a denomination has departed from the Word of God and then some time later returned to a more solid Biblical position. Sad but true, the only effective answer is to come out from among them and be separate.   Dr. John Whitcomb has said it this way: The only possible way to perpetuate His truth is to separate it from all forms of error and compromise. A refusal to recognize
 this fundamental fact is the fatal blunder of modern ecclesiastical ecumenism in all its forms, including evangelical ecumenism. Truth cannot be perpetuated through compromise and compromise cannot be avoided without separation. This is a formula which God’s people have discovered through centuries of sad experience with the weakness of fallen human nature in the presence of “the god of this world,” and especially through the direct teachings of God’s Word (Christ, Our Pattern and Plan, p. 14).   F.B.Meyer has said, There is not a single hero or saint, whose name sparkles on the inspired page, who moved his times from within: All, without exception, have raised the cry, "Let us go forth without the camp"; and have joined the constant stream of martyrs, confessors, prophets, and saints, of which the world was not worthy, but who can trace their kinship to Him of whom it is
 written, "He suffered without the gate."Dr. G. Campbell Morgan also spoke of the urgent need for separation: There is a toleration which is treachery. There is a peace which issues in paralysis. There are hours when the church must say NO to those who should ask communion with her, in the doing of her work, upon the basis of compromise. Such standing aloof may produce ostracism and persecution; but it will maintain power and influence. If the Church of God in the cities of today were aloof from the maxims of the age, separated from the materialistic philosophies of the schools, bearing her witness alone to the all-sufficiency of Christ, and the perfection of His salvation, even though persecuted and ostracized and bruised, it would be to her that men would look in the hour of their heartbreak and sorrow and national need. The reason why men do not look to the church today is that she has
 destroyed her own influence by compromise.Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Call it what you want butI see it as Gods Commands to a christian to keep themselves pure.   It is taught in the OT  the New.2 Co 6 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and
 they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.God instructs believers to "try the Spirits." (1 John 4:1-6) Do not give a false teacher hospitality. (2 John 9-11) Watch or be on guard for false teachers and regularly warn the congregation of them . (Act 20:26-32)MARK and avoid false teachers. (Rom. 16:17-19) Jesus warned us against embrasing false teachers. (Matt. 7:13-23)Let false teachers be accursed. (Gal. 1:6-11) Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14-17)“Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22)Obey not their word and have no company with them. (2 Thess. 3:13-15)(IT is a COMMAND not a
 suggestion) Withdraw from those who will not follow Paul's teaching. (2 Thess. 3:6) “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. Wherefore he saith, Awake thou

Re: [TruthTalk] JD finds what he claimed not to have received

[Kevin Deegan]

Judy How dare you, consistantly Ignore JD's Straw Man!Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  So you found it JD and it looks as though you areon a roll - an anti-Judy roll at that.On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:51:15 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:From: Knpraise - You glibbly misuse this scripturewhile, at the same time, consistently ignoring the problem that "infallible understanding" brings into the discussion.  
   Who said anything about "infallible understanding" - I said "spiritually discerned" Of course it is possible to  have the wrong spirit leading you around by the nose also which would put you on the other side. Actually, in my case, such is not possible if you
 reference The Demon god. Secondly, infallible understanding and spiritually discerned are the same thing.You claim that there is no interpretation on your part -- that God gives you understanding (and I would assume the correct understanding). Hence, the two phrases are the same. If not, why not. You Judy, believe that both the bible and your reading of the textare inspired - they cannot be wrong. Don't be telling me what I believe thank you very much. I am telling you what you told me. The problem with this assertionis manifold: itdoes not allow for change of
 opinion on a given scripture because there is no opinion on scripture;No there isn't JD. Now we may be getting somewhere. You must have read 2 Peter 1:20 after all. Hence , infallible understanding. it places your understanding above all others (Miller, deegan, Linda Shileds and even Barth) when there is a disagreement of meaning or terms;You sure like to get everyone in on the fracas don't you JD? But you left out Terry, wonder if he feels rejected. I did
 no such thing. I contrasted your infallible understanding with the interpretations of others on this forum. David actually believes much the same as you. When you two disagree, who's right? it provides no reason for reconsidering a scripture; and it actually renders verbal/plenary inspiration of the text (something you believe) as unnecessary in view of thefact that God provides not only the words but your understanding of the text; It sure does JD but it gives you plenty of room for error. You choose whether or not you will do what it says.  in which case you are a doer of the Word rather than a deceived hearer of the Word plus Barth.There is NO ROOM FOR ERROR, Judy. We are talking about our understanding of scriptuire -- not obedience. And you continue the Lie against Barth. So much for "obedience." it ignores the fact that there was no bible when Paul wrote I Co -- only Jewish scripture and the church did not have ready access tomost of those document copies. I don't see that the Bereans had much problem, even without the NT they searched the scriptures daily to see whether what Paul was teaching them was valid - What's more he called them "more honorable" for doing this. I think you go around looking for excuses and problems JD. You ignored my main point, I think. Didn't I ask about the possiblity
 that there were teachers in Berea? You think this was a bunch of people without leadership Get real. And what if apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers?? Why are they in the church. To help us understand scripture, among other things. Barth is just another teacher. JdFrom: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comAnd I will simply say once more that the Word of God needs no
 "INTERPRETATION" and that this is the crux of  the problem. Scripture can only be spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2:14)so all of your theological "interpreters"   will in the last day prove to have been false prophets/teachers.On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 07:31:06 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:There most assuredly is. David Miller, Bill Taylor and John Smithson however, have demonstrated on numerous occasions, that it is NOT ALWAYS YOURS! To ward off yet another charge of blasphemy by David, I'll simply say that ALL INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE ARE NEITHER EXHAUSTIVE NOR INFALLIBLE. That then, would include your interpretation(s) of Scripture would it
 not?- Original Message -   From: Judy Taylor   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: December 05, 2005 07:21  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] JUDY ASKS: Is Jesus..the figment of my (Judy is also 'some theologian') prolific imagination?Meaning that everyone has their own Jesus and there is no standard of
 Truth?On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 07:16:42 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:The definitive answer to your query concerning 'your own Jesus' is...well...YES.   judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't
 keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)   judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
 Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)   judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
 Commandments is a liar (1 

Re: [TruthTalk] JUDY SAYS THAT THE WORD OF GOD NEEDS NO INTERPRETATION..TWOG IS SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED

[Kevin Deegan]

  Thoytom Asse Coria Tushrump codsheadirustie,Mungrellimo whish whap ragge dicete tottrie,Mangelusquem verminets nipsem barelybittimsore,Culliandolt travellerebumque, graiphone trutchmore.Pusse per mew (Odcomb) gul abelgik foppery shig shagCock a peps Comb sottishamp, Idioshte momulus tag rag.Poem in the Utopian Tongue 1613  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  talk the talk, walk the walk,Rock the Flock 
 __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 

RE: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm

[Kevin Deegan]

The gift is Jesus Christ NOT Sturday!  I believe the SDA have replaced Jesus with the SATURDAY Sabbath only  In fact one of the doctrines of Devils is "commanding to abstain" from meats.  Any SDA preach such?Do you think everyone who goes to Church on Sunday is worshipping the BEAST?  AFA a Sabbath  MK 2 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto
 them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.Every day is Holy unto the Lord!  RM 14 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike.  ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  I accept the Saturday sabbath as a gift from God; given in His commandments. And a precious gift at that. I only wish I kept it better than I do. Are you ridiculing the sabbath, Kevin? izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 4:47 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re:
 [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm  By the way has anyone out there accepted this "GIFT", the saturday sabbath?Or was it a different gift?Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:1 Tim 4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; ...Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meatshttp://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q18.htmSDA say Sunday Church attendance is the MARK of the Beast and IDOLATRY! “If we find tonight that 95% of us sitting here and definitely 95% of everybody in this city, is worshipping the beast all the time, don’t let it surprise you folks. Cause that’s exactly what God said and that’s exactly what we are going to find out as we go through this study tonight. So be prepared for it, God’s already warned us and the vast majority of us sitting here tonight are going to find out we too
 have been deceived by the beast, and we too have been worshipping and following after the beast.” LEO SCHREVEN SDA Revelation Seminar  "Sunday-keeping must be the mark of the beast." ... "The reception of his mark must be something that involves the greatest offense that can be committed against God." The Marvel of Nations, Elder U. Smith pages 170, 183"Here we find the mark of the beast. The very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, on the part of the Catholic church, without any
 authority from the Bible." Ellen G. White, The Mark of the Beast, page 23 "The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the Papacy. It is the mark of the beast." Advent Review, Vol. I, No. 2, August, 1850 "The change of the Sabbath is the sign or mark of the authority of the
 Romish church." ... "The keeping of the counterfeit Sabbath is the reception of the mark." Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, Vol.. 4, page 281. "Sunday-keeping is an institution of the first beast, and ALL who submit to obey this institution emphatically worship the first beast and receive his mark, 'the mark of the beast.'  Those who worship the beast and his image by observing the first day are certainly idolaters, as were the worshippers of the golden calf." Advent Review Extra, pages 10
 and 11, August, 1850“The eating of pork has aroused and strengthened a most deadly humor which is in the systemNEVER SHOULD ONE MORSEL OF SWINE'S FLESH BE PLACED UPON YOUR TABLE” Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 2, pp. 94, 96Mrs. White believed God was instructing her in matters of diet as she wrote to some friends “when the selfishness of taking the lives of animals to gratify a perverted taste was presented to me by a Catholic woman, kneeling at my feet, I felt ashamed and I distressed—I saw it in a new light, and I said, I will no longer patronize the butchers. I will not have the flesh of corpses on my table.” Prophetess of Health; Ellen G. White by Ronald L. Numbers, p. 172 Judy Taylor
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  I haven't a clue why Lance sent this, I asked him about it myself.Don't know what Dave Hunt is, if anything but I do know he is NOT SDA and I don't believe Lance is
 either.He couldn't be universalist if he were. I have a friend who began attending a SDA church abt 3yrs ago.They are prone to be vegetarian and are quite

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

[Kevin Deegan]

and its oneobviousreaosn why there's an ACLU  LOL Now that is funny!  To SAVE US from the New Birth![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  myth (this ain't in the NT; its the fount ofAm Fundamentalist culticlegalism--its how legalism works to maintain partic racist exclusivity..its why evangelism in Fundamentalism equates to church s/hopping..and its oneobviousreaosn why there's an ACLU)On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 23:50:51 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:new birth of the Spirit..[is] required..[to] have fellowship with others in the body of Christ  __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail..yahoo.com 

Re: [TruthTalk] Virtue of Name Calling

[Kevin Deegan]

ToNOT "name call" a False teacher is to SIN!  You already practice such are you inaccurate?  Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  I guess if we were Christ, or his Apostles, then we would be able to exercise "Accurate name-calling". But, since we are not, IMO we can not, and therefore, we should not.PerryFrom: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCC: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Virtue of Name CallingDate: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 19:59:01 -0500This is an interesting article - What say ye CPL??On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 15:41:19 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:The Virtue of
 Name-CallingJohn W. RobbinsAmerican Christians of the twentieth century are, for the most part, apusillanimous bunch. About the only time they shed their timidity is inorder to attack a fellow Christian who is valiant in defense of thetruth. A Christian like that is perceived as a threat to the "unity ofbelievers" and the "peace of the church." Confronted with such a manifestthreat to unity and peace, some professed Christians can be quitevindictive and vicious, as J. Gresham Machen learned earlier in thiscentury and as Harold Lindsell is learning now.Some time ago a reader wrote to the editors of Present Truth (nowVerdict) magazine to protest the magazine’s attitude toward Karl Barth.In his letter, the reader referred to Barth as a "monstrous miscreant,"thereby violating the first commandment of polite society: Never callpeople names (unless, of course, those people are
 ignorantfundamentalists). The editor, in a stern and curt rebuke, reprimanded thereader, saying, "We suggest, sir, that you stick to judging Barth’stheology and not his person." That is, never call people names.Name-calling is not only non-Christian, it is worse: It is prima facieevidence of bad taste, and whatever Christians do, they must never, nonever, give the impression that they are of low birth.Two of the most shocking things for a twentieth-century AmericanChristian to read are the works of Martin Luther and John Calvin, forthese men—who were valiant for the truth—did not hesitate to call peoplenames. Are Luther and Calvin wrong and the editors of Present Truthright? The only way for a Christian to discover the answer is to examinethe Scriptures.Unfortunately, most professed Christians today seem never to have gottenpast Matthew 7. That’s too bad, for they should
 proceed to read Matthew23. In that chapter alone, Christ calls the scribes and Pharisees names16 times. The names are "hypocrites" (7 times), "son of Hell"(once),"blind guides" (twice), "fools and blind" (3 times), "whitedsepulchres" (once), "serpents" (once), and "offspring of vipers" (once).Since Christ was without sin, we may deduce by good and necessaryconsequence that name-calling as such is not a sin. Since everythingChrist did was righteous and virtuous, we may deduce by good andnecessary consequence that accurate name-calling is a virtue.But Christ is not the only example. John, who some professed Christianslove to quote because they misunderstand and misrepresent what he saysabout love, calls certain persons known to his readers "liars" and"antichrists." Those sensitive souls who flinch when they read chapter 25of the Westminster Confession identifying the pope as
 antichrist shouldread 1 John 2 and 2 John. John was not talking about someone far off inRome; he was referring to persons known to his readers.Just AD HOMS?Then there is Paul, who in 1 Corinthians corrected those at Corinth whodenied the resurrection. In chapter 15, verse 36, he refers to oneobjector as a fool. And can we not conclude from Psalms 14:1 and 53:1that Madalyn O’Hair, for example, is a fool? Further, in 1 Timothy 4:2Paul refers to "hypocritical liars" and in 5:13 he writes of "gossips andbusybodies." Those who object to name-calling must object to the practiceof Jesus, Paul, and John, among many others.The obvious question, which the perceptive reader has already asked, is,what shall we do with Matthew 5:22:"Whosoever shall say to his brother,Raca, shall be liable to the Sanhedrin; but whoever shall say, Fool,shall be liable to the fire of Hell." Does not this
 verse, just asMatthew 7:1does with judging and Matthew 5:34-37 do with swearing,prohibit all name-calling? The answer, equally obvious, is no. Such aninterpretation would create irreconcilable contradictions in the Bible.Just as Matthew 7:1 does not prohibit accurate judging and Matthew5:34-37 do not prohibit legitimate swearing, neither does Matthew 5:22prohibit accurate name-calling. It is not name-calling per se that isproscribed, but inaccurate name-calling. Jesus, John, and Paul used namesaccurately and achieved a specific purpose: telling the truth.Name-calling,

Re: [TruthTalk] One of the greatest voices

[Kevin Deegan]

9,000 pages of his Dogmatic Barth can say less with more words than any manI know!  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Bill writes: "It will take many years, I'm sure, before Barth will be allowed to speak for himself to the conservative community. In the meantime Evangelical Christians will be missing out on one of the greatest voicesthe Church has ever known.  I'm curious about what you find so great Bill... What does Barth say in the more than 9,000 pages of his Dogmatic that we can not learn through the grace and mercy of God from HisOwn Word? Was
 Barth inspired or misguided in his belief that the "task of theology is to unfold the revealed word attested in the Bible" when Jesus' own Words teach us that this is the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who believe and follow Him?  The very size of the Dogmatics.   Mascall said that it takes so much time to read this theologian of the word that no time is left to read the Word itself. His (Barth's) style is majestic, and difficult.   From 1932 to 1967 he (Barth)worked on his Church Dogmatics, a multivolume work that was unfinished at his death. It consists of 13 parts in four volumes, running altogether to more than 9,000 pages. Although he changed some of his early positions, he continued to maintain that the task of theology is to unfold the revealed word
 attested in the Bible, and that there is no place for natural theology or the influence of non-Christian religions. His theology depended on a distinction between the Word (i.e., God's self-revelation as concretely manifested in Christ) and religion.  judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
 Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)  
		 Yahoo! Personals 
Skip the bars and set-ups and start using Yahoo! Personals for free

Re: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our midst ....The sky is faling, the sky is falling

[Kevin Deegan]

This afternoon I checked my copy of Barth - Evangelical THEOLOGY.  I noticed something Strange, in the whole book there is a total of about 6 pages that have ANY Scripture References on the page! The absence of Scripture is stunning.  In fact there are two references to scripture in the WHOLE Chapter on the "WORD". That is quite a feat![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Someone who has never taken the time to actually read with a heart to understand Barth, has written the following: Most of these young professors were infected with neo-orthodoxy; the then fashionable "reformed" liberalism of Swiss theologian
 Karl Barth. Neo-orthodoxy claims that the human words of the Bible are not the very words of God, but rather are a fallible human "witness" to the words of God and are therefore in a sense, the "Word" of God to man. In some cases they claim that the words of the Bible "become" the Word of God to man at a particular existential moment when that man senses God speaking to him. Others have spoken of the Bible "containing" the Word of God. This morning, I have just finished reading a section of Church Dogmatics (1.1 , The Word of God, pp 99-111). The above quotation
 is remarkably out of touch with Barthian thought.In this section, (and I have stopped reading much too soon, of course) he deals with the Catholic view of apostolic succession (he is opposed)and the place and purpose of tradition. He views church tradition asthe Church having dialogue with itself !! He views the Bible and the biblical message as an alternative to apostolic succession, butdistinguishes between the written word and an exegesis of that word. Indiffering words, he believes that if we continue a specific exegesis, as a Church, such becomes a tradition -- and we find ourselves talking to ourselves. If , on the other, exegesis(our understanding of a scripture or of scripture in general) is revisited, allowing God to work in that process, then and only then is the Word of Godestablished as divine succession through the ages. In such a view, the church is not its own authority but neither is tradition (which may include a fixed or dogmatic exegesis -- it can be "fixed" for me but I cannot order the same for you !!). "The statement that the Bible is God's Word is a confession offaith, a statement of the faith which hears God Himself speak through the biblical word of man. To be sure it is a statement which, when venturing it in faith, we accept as true even apart from our faith and beyond all our faith and even in face of our lack of faith. We do not accept it as a description of our experience of the Bible. We accept it as a description of God's action in theBible ... God's action on man has become an event, and not therefore that man has grasped at the Bible but that the Bible has grasped at man" (p110). Barth does not separate the Bible from the fact of faith in the connection of God and Bible - which, as I read Barth, makes this book The Living Word (the connection does this). Not the book on the shelf but the book in our hand, as it were !!!
 Not what I have decided as to the Book's specific intention but what it will say to me tomorrow as well as today. That is inspiration. That is why the Bible has succession to the present time when, in fact, the first documents have all been lost.   jd  p.S. If the lack of scripture is noted in the above, consider any evangelical apologetic for verbal/plenary inspiration. You will find the same "lack of scripture' No matter how we get there, we reason/accept/argue for the
 inclusion of Holy Scripture and THEN we move into its pages. There is no escaping this procedure, apparently. jd-Original Message-From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 03:36:27 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our midst  JD and Lance are infectedOther than being about 25 years out of date (Francis Schaeffer a 'giant'?) it is good to note that people know who he was.- Original Message -   From: ShieldsFamily   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: December 03, 2005 23:21  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our midst  JD and Lance are infected  Wow. Really eye opening information from Francis Schaeffer. Now that?s a real indictment, coming from such a giant as him. Thanks, Jude. izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 11:41 AMTo: truthtalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our midst  JD and Lance are infectedJD writes: Stop with the lie, Judy. You have nothing to back up your claim but when has that slowed you down in the past. You want Barth to be a threat THEREFORE he is. He spent his lifetime presenting the Message of scripture -- a lifetime. He is all about the biblical message and you are all about 

Re: [TruthTalk] One of the greatest voices

[Kevin Deegan]

Hardly the kind of atmosphere where faith grows.Maybe that is why barth Devotes a WHOLE chapter to "DOUBT" in Evangelical THEOLOGYJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 07:36:51 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Judy, let's assume that we could take all the words you've posted to TT and bind them together in a book. What would it number, say, maybe 9000 pages? Would a single one of them be worth reading? What were you attempting to do with those words,
 if not to unfold the revealed word attested in the Bible? You see, Judy, you still think that everyone is doing theology except you. Okay, please tell me what it is you think you are doing.Fellowshipping with other "believers" on an internet forum; and speaking God's truth with others whoseek to walk in it?You will try in vain to get me into an argument over Karl Barth. I just simply won't do it. If you are interested in the man, then read his works or the works of his students; they are manifest and quite approachable. If not then please move on. None of the criticisms you share are new or revelatory. Unlessyou havebeen living in a bath tub,you, along with millions of other Christians, havebeen well-misinformed about this man. Bill   
 So you are not prepared to give account for the hope that is in you with regard to Barth Bill? Everything I have read about him so far has been dialectic and nothing is definitive. Hardly the kind of atmosphere where faith grows.  From: Judy Taylor Bill writes: "It will take many years, I'm sure, before Barth will be allowed to speak for himself to the conservative community. In the meantime Evangelical Christians will be missing out on one of the
 greatest voicesthe Church has ever known.  I'm curious about what you find so great Bill... What does Barth say in the more than 9,000 pages of his Dogmatic that we can not learn through the grace and mercy of God from HisOwn Word? Was Barth inspired or misguided in his belief that the "task of theology is to unfold the revealed word attested in the Bible" when Jesus' own Words teach us that this is the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who believe and follow Him?  The very size of the Dogmatics.   Mascall said that it takes so much time to read this theologian of the word that no time is left to read the Word itself. His (Barth's) style is majestic, and difficult.   From 1932 to 1967 he (Barth)worked on his Church Dogmatics, a
 multivolume work that was unfinished at his death. It consists of 13 parts in four volumes, running altogether to more than 9,000 pages. Although he changed some of his early positions, he continued to maintain that the task of theology is to unfold the revealed word attested in the Bible, and that there is no place for natural theology or the influence of non-Christian religions. His theology depended on a distinction between the Word (i.e., God's self-revelation as concretely manifested in Christ) and religion. 
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)  
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)  __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 

RE: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm

[Kevin Deegan]

  You did not answer the question.  Do you think everyone who goes to Church on Sunday is worshipping the BEAST?ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 Kevin, I can’t speak for the SDA’s as I’ve never met one. I can only speak for myself, and I have not replaced the gift of Jesus with the Saturday Sabbath. I just read the ten commandments and there it was. I tried it. I liked it. I still do. I can’t find anywhere that God’s word revoked it. Man doesn’t esteem it, but apparently the Lord does. Jesus never violated it; he just didn’t follow man-made added-on rules about it—he kept it the way God intends us to keep it if we want the blessings of it. So I don’t argue about it with people who take offense at it—that’s between you and the Word. May each one of us answer to our own Master. izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 6:51 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm  The gift is Jesus Christ NOT Sturday!I believe the SDA have replaced Jesus with the SATURDAY Sabbath onlyIn fact one of the doctrines of Devils is "commanding to abstain" from meats.Any SDA preach such?Do you think everyone who goes to Church on Sunday is worshipping the BEAST?AFA a SabbathMK 2 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto
 them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.Every day is Holy unto the Lord!RM 14 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike.ShieldsFamily
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  I accept the Saturday sabbath as a gift from God; given in His commandments. And a precious gift at that. I only wish I kept it better than I do. Are you ridiculing the sabbath, Kevin? izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 4:47 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm  By the way has anyone out there accepted this "GIFT", the saturday sabbath?  Or was it a different gift?Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  1 Tim 4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; ...  Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meatshttp://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q18.htmSDA say Sunday Church attendance is the MARK of the Beast and IDOLATRY! “If we find tonight that 95% of us sitting here and definitely 95% of everybody in this city, is worshipping the beast all the time, don’t let it surprise you folks. Cause that’s exactly what God said and that’s exactly what we are going to find out as we go through this
 study tonight. So be prepared for it, God’s already warned us and the vast majority of us sitting here tonight are going to find out we too have been deceived by the beast, and we too have been worshipping and following after the beast.” LEO SCHREVEN SDA Revelation Seminar"Sunday-keeping must be the mark of the beast." ... "The reception of his mark must be something that involves the greatest offense that can be committed against God." The Marvel of Nations, Elder U. Smith pages 170, 183"Here we find the mark of
 the beast. The very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, on the part of the Catholic church, without any authority from the Bible." Ellen G. White, The Mark of the Beast, page 23 "The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the Papacy. It is the mark of the beast." Advent Review, Vol. I, No. 2, August, 1850 "The change of the Sabbath is the sign or mark of the authority of the Romish church." ... "The keeping of the counterfeit Sabbath is the reception of the mark." Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, Vol.. 4, page 281. "Sunday-keeping is an institution of the first beast, and ALL who submit to obey this institution
 emphatically worship the first beast and receive his mark, 'the mark of the beast.'  Those who worship the beast and his image by observing the first day are certainly idolaters, as were the worshippers of the golden calf." Advent Review Extra, pages 10 and 11, August, 

Re: [TruthTalk] One of the greatest voices

[Kevin Deegan]

God does not need the gymnastics of your theology to make clear what it is that we are to believe. He would have simply said (God speaking ex-cathedra !!) believe this and do not believe that - the impact of this doctrine is this and you are hell bound if you believe that. He spoke that way in Torah - why not now? Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind... Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin
 remaineth.Sealed the book to those outside His ownIs 8 And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken. Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.God did not give us a Chapter on Baptism A Chapter on Salvation a Chapter on etc. So that the UNbelievers who be BLIND followers of the Blind might FALL Backward BE BRoken Snared  TakenIS 28 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful menJer 6 To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it.JN 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. ... He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.JN 5 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe
 not.  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Judy, Bill has correctly cast the shadow -- you believe that you are one of the few who is not doing theology !!!Barth's reverence and high regard for faith as the "x" factor that brings all The Faith together is the most startling concept presenting itself as one reads Barth for the first time (thatwould be me). There is simply nothing that has been presentedon TT thatevidences Barth as a"liberal." In fact, he specifically opposed the liberal theology of the day, using that very word in his criticism. To simply argue
 whether Barth is this orthat is - like Bill - not of interest to me. But, if a quotation is taken out of context and this gives me the opportunity to read what I have not read before, then I intend to sharethat with TT. Or personal reading as per this mornings reading and sharing. Barth's theology of the continuance of scripture (i.e. the Bible) is perfectly in line with Jere 31: 33-34. What you have done with your brand of theology, is to fashion an argument (that the Holy Spirit inspires your mind as you read the scriptures) that cannot be wrong and must be accepted if unity is to be accomplished. If enough of you could grab the power that is intrinsic in Church leadership, we would have ex-cathedra of the Church rather than liberty in the spirit. -- Judy style. God does not need the gymnastics of your theology to make clear what it is that we are to believe. He would have simply said (God speaking ex-cathedra !!) believe this and do not believe that - the impact of this doctrine is this and you are hell bound if you believe that. He spoke that way in Torah - why not now? Evangelicals know that their doctrine of verbal/plenary only effects the original documents. We do not have those documents, of course, so now what ?? !! We are left with Barth's notion - a very conservative effort at dealing with the problem without delving into mythology
 - and his assertion that the living God providentially supervises (or whatever word you desire) not only the preservation of holy scripture but the reading and understanding of same as the text is visit AND REVISITED by the disciple and the larger church. No point revisiting scripture if you can get it right the first time, right Judy? And "getting it right" has much more to do with the maturity of the disciple than "getting it right,"I hasten to add. New Testament scriptures have been given to us and continue to be the Living Word of God, in part, because of God's continuing association with them. They are worthless if not found in your hands and heart...which reality validates Barth's assertion of divine accompaniment in the first visit and the revisiting of scripture. I have no reason to consider Gal 3:26,
 27 again, for example, if this revisiting of the text does not provide me the opportunity to hear the voice of the Living God work in my heart as I consider the biblical message, yet, again. jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL 

Re: [TruthTalk] One of the greatest voices

[Kevin Deegan]

Evangelicals know that their doctrine of verbal/plenary only effects the original documents.So it is a MOOT point there is NO Verbal/Plenary Inspirations since there are NO "Originals"  Gods word is NOT Verbal/Plenary Inspired in your eyes,except MAYBE in the NON Existant LONG ago LOST "Originals"  Where does this Strange Doctrine come from?Surely not the Word as God is not as concerned as you about Originals.  If the originals get "LOST" God simply has his man make another copy or secondary or tertiary COPY! See Jer 36. AND sometimes God Orders the destruction of THE "ORIGINAL" so that what we have is nothing but a copy.  Portions of the ORIGINAL of Jer is somewhere in the Euphrates! 
 Jeremiah51:63And it shall be, when thou hast made an end of reading this book, that thou shalt bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of Euphrates  Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Very good, John.- Original Message -   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 9:38 AM  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] One of the "greatest voices"Judy, Bill has correctly cast the shadow -- you believe that you are one of the few who is not doing theology !!!Barth's reverence and high regard for faith as the "x" factor that brings all The Faith together is the most startling concept presenting itself as one reads Barth for the first time (thatwould be me). There is simply nothing that has been presentedon TT thatevidences Barth as a"liberal." In
 fact, he specifically opposed the liberal theology of the day, using that very word in his criticism. To simply argue whether Barth is this orthat is - like Bill - not of interest to me. But, if a quotation is taken out of context and this gives me the opportunity to read what I have not read before, then I intend to sharethat with TT. Or personal reading as per this mornings reading and sharing. Barth's theology of the continuance of scripture (i.e. the Bible) is perfectly in line with Jere 31: 33-34. What you have done with your brand of theology, is to fashion an argument (that the Holy Spirit inspires your mind as you read the scriptures) that cannot be wrong and must be accepted if
 unity is to be accomplished. If enough of you could grab the power that is intrinsic in Church leadership, we would have ex-cathedra of the Church rather than liberty in the spirit. -- Judy style. God does not need the gymnastics of your theology to make clear what it is that we are to believe. He would have simply said (God speaking ex-cathedra !!) believe this and do not believe that - the impact of this doctrine is this and you are hell bound if you believe that. He spoke that way in Torah - why not now? Evangelicals know that their doctrine of verbal/plenary only effects the original documents. We do not have those documents, of course, so now what ?? !! We are left with
 Barth's notion - a very conservative effort at dealing with the problem without delving into mythology - and his assertion that the living God providentially supervises (or whatever word you desire) not only the preservation of holy scripture but the reading and understanding of same as the text is visit AND REVISITED by the disciple and the larger church. No point revisiting scripture if you can get it right the first time, right Judy? And "getting it right" has much more to do with the maturity of the disciple than "getting it right,"I hasten to add. New Testament scriptures have been given to us and continue to be the Living Word of God, in part, because of God's continuing association with them. They are worthless if not found in your hands and heart...which reality validates Barth's assertion of divine accompaniment in the first visit and the revisiting of scripture. I have no reason to consider Gal 3:26, 27 again, for example, if this revisiting of the text does not provide me the opportunity to hear the voice of the Living God work in my heart as I consider the biblical message, yet, again. jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 09:32:24 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] One of the "greatest voices"JD why do you think Barth is correct?  Have you ever asked yourself why a God who promised through the prophet Jeremiah 2631yrs ago and later through the prophet Ezekiel 2602yrs ago that He would make a New Covenant with His ppl and that this New Covenant would include writingHis Law in their inward parts so that they would not need a man to teach them because they would all know Him which promise was againvalidated sometime before 70 AD in the book of Hebrews?Makes no common sense or any other kind of senseto me in light of the above - (along with the Promise of the Holy Spirit sent on the day of Pentecost to lead us into ALL truth) - that He (the Omniscient God of the Universe) would 

RE: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm

[Kevin Deegan]

There are those that try. But is that really "worship"?ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  I don’t know anyone who does that, Terry. Do you? izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 12:37 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htmWHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANYONE WHO TRULY KNOWS THE lORD ONLY WORSHIP HIM ONE
 DAY A WEEK? We are free to worship any day, any place, any time. Live it up!Kevin Deegan wrote: The gift is Jesus Christ NOT Sturday!I believe the SDA have replaced Jesus with the SATURDAY Sabbath onlyIn fact one of the doctrines of Devils is "commanding to abstain" from meats.Any SDA preach such?Do you think everyone who goes to Church on Sunday is worshipping the BEAST?AFA a SabbathMK 2 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the
 house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.Every day is Holy unto the Lord!RM 14 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day
 alike.ShieldsFamily mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  I accept the Saturday sabbath as a gift from God; given in His commandments. And a precious gift at that. I only wish I kept it better than I do. Are you ridiculing the sabbath, Kevin? iz 
 
		 Yahoo! Personals 
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet. 
Lots of someones, actually. Try Yahoo! Personals

RE: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our midst .... JD and Lance are infected

[Kevin Deegan]

IHO see the web site.ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Then why don’t you pass comment, Lance, instead of passing judgment? What specifically is “out of date” about that godly man IYO? izzyFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 12:59 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk]
 Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our midst  JD and Lance are infected  I listened to and, transcribed some 550 hrs of FS lectures. I do believe myself to be in a position to pass comment on FS.  - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 04, 2005 11:38Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our midst  JD and Lance are infected  Oh, must one be “up to date” on the trendy side of Christianity, Lance? Give me that old time religion! izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 2:36 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our midst  JD and Lance are infected  Other than being about 25 years out of date (Francis Schaeffer a 'giant'?) it is good to note that people know who he was.  - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 03, 2005 23:21Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our midst  JD and Lance are infected  Wow. Really eye opening information from Francis Schaeffer. Now that’s a real indictment, coming from such a giant as him. Thanks, Jude. izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 11:41 AMTo: truthtalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our midst  JD and Lance are infectedJD writes: Stop with the lie, Judy. You have nothing to back up your claim but when has that slowed you down in the past. You want Barth to be a threat THEREFORE he is. He spent his lifetime presenting the Message of scripture -- a lifetime. He is all about the biblical message and you are all about making up stuff. Quite a difference.   No JD, it isn't only me, even though you would like it to be. Barth is one of those liberal German theologians who began the decline of belief in the authority of God's Word in this
 country. Lord help us! Please removethese blinders.  As Francis Schaeffer stated so eloquently, courage for confrontation over matters of truth and righteousness in the hearts of Christian leaders in North America was replaced by a kind of "knee-jerk" response committed to accommodation and "peace at any price" which sadly still reigns supreme within most evangelical circles today. This is one major reason things have disintegrated so far and so fast. At the same time, the relativistic view of truth and a dichotomy world view (that segregates the spiritual world from the material world into two
 separate air-tight compartments) that came from philosophers such as Hume, Kant, and Hegel had all but completely captured the university intellectuals of the entire world.  Neo-Orthodoxy infects the Evangelical Ranks - This was the kind of academic atmosphere that prevailed during the 20 years from 1947 to 1967 when many evangelical seminaries and colleges sent their bright young scholars to European universities to get their doctorates. A large percentage of these young scholars were infected with liberal and neo-orthodox views of the Bible; and then they returned to their evangelical schools to teach a neo-orthodox view of the Bible (what they sincerely believed were the "latest, most scholarly" views) to their students. These partially "corrupted" young professors did not openly challenge their denomination's or institution's historic view of inspiration of the Bible. It was more subtle than that and less obvious than the open battle over the Bible of the 1920s and 1930s. Most of these young professors were infected with neo-orthodoxy; the then fashionable "reformed" liberalism of Swiss theologian Karl Barth. Neo-orthodoxy claims that the human words of the Bible are not the very words of God, but rather are a fallible human "witness" to the words of God and are therefore in a sense, the "Word" of God to man. In some cases they claim that the words of the Bible "become" the Word of God to man at a particular existential moment when that man senses God speaking to him. Others have spoken of the
 Bible "containing" the Word of God.   Neo-Orthodoxy Undermines the Reliability of Scripture Since most neo-orthodox theologians attempt to honor God's word in some sense, their presentation to their students of their existential and relativistic re-interpretation of the Bible does not appear to be, nor is it intended to be, an attack upon the Bible. But, since most neo-orthodox men accept most of the higher 

Re: [TruthTalk] One of the greatest voices

[Kevin Deegan]

Sorry Bub, he has loosed my stammering tongue!And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God.  And NOW  My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments are righteousness.  PS 45 my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.  His word  Name will always be on this Tongue![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  apparently Jesus saideverything he
 needed to say back then, but you sound more like his parrot than his sheep, Bro; why not try interacting with us, like you're one of us on the planetrather thanthe Voicefrom above?On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:35:26 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:||  And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind... Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.   
 ||  
		 Yahoo! Personals 
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet. 
Lots of someones, actually. Try Yahoo! Personals

Re: [TruthTalk] One of the greatest voices

[Kevin Deegan]

This is a BIG problem for your 'god', not mine![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  (listen to yourself sometime, Bro--sometimes its even interesting:)On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:46:31 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:sometimes God Orders the destruction of THE "ORIGINAL" so that what we have is nothing but a copy.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of
 spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our midst ....The sky is faling, the sky is falling

[Kevin Deegan]

One whiff tells me it stinks,I don't need to chug a whole gallon to figure it out.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:So what? Beats quoting one proof text after another without any understanding. His Dogmatics have something around 800 scriptural refereces per volume regardless of the sizes of the volume. That's something like 9000 to 10,000 scriptures . But you don't really care whether he uses scripture or not, do you deegan.   jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 12:58:58 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re:
 [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our midst The sky is faling, the sky is fallingThis afternoon I checked my copy of Barth -
 Evangelical THEOLOGY.  I noticed something Strange, in the whole book there is a total of about 6 pages that have ANY Scripture References on the page! The absence of Scripture is stunning.  In fact there are two references to scripture in the WHOLE Chapter on the "WORD". That is quite a feat![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Someone who has never taken the time to actually read with a heart to understand Barth, has written the following: Most of these young professors were infected with neo-orthodoxy; the then fashionable "reformed" liberalism of Swiss theologian Karl Barth. Neo-orthodoxy claims
 that the human words of the Bible are not the very words of God, but rather are a fallible human "witness" to the words of God and are therefore in a sense, the "Word" of God to man. In some cases they claim that the words of the Bible "become" the Word of God to man at a particular existential moment when that man senses God speaking to him. Others have spoken of the Bible "containing" the Word of God. This morning, I have just finished reading a section of Church Dogmatics (1.1 , The Word of God, pp 99-111). The above quotation is remarkably out of touch with Barthian thought.In this section, (and I have stopped reading much too soon, of course) he deals with the Catholic view of apostolic succession (he is opposed)and the place and purpose of tradition. He views church tradition asthe Church having dialogue with itself !! He views the Bible and the biblical message as an alternative to apostolic succession, butdistinguishes between the written word and an exegesis of that word. Indiffering words, he believes that if we continue a specific exegesis, as a Church, such becomes a tradition -- and we find ourselves talking to ourselves. If , on the other, exegesis(our understanding of a scripture or
 of scripture in general) is revisited, allowing God to work in that process, then and only then is the Word of Godestablished as divine succession through the ages. In such a view, the church is not its own authority but neither is tradition (which may include a fixed or dogmatic exegesis -- it can be "fixed" for me but I cannot order the same for you !!). "The statement that the Bible is God's Word is a confession offaith, a statement of the faith which hears God Himself speak through the biblical word of man. To be sure it is a statement which, when venturing it in faith, we accept as true even apart from our faith and beyond all our faith and even in face of our lack of faith. We do not accept it as a description of
 our experience of the Bible. We accept it as a description of God's action in theBible ... God's action on man has become an event, and not therefore that man has grasped at the Bible but that the Bible has grasped at man" (p110). Barth does not separate the Bible from the fact of faith in the connection of God and Bible - which, as I read Barth, makes this book The Living Word (the connection does this). Not the book on the shelf but the book in our hand, as it were !!! Not what I have decided as to the Book's specific intention but what it will say to me tomorrow as well as today. That is inspiration. That is why the Bible has succession to the present time when, in fact, the first documents have all been lost.   jd  p.S. If the lack of scripture is noted in the above, consider any evangelical apologetic for verbal/plenary inspiration. You will find the same "lack of scripture' No matter how we get there, we reason/accept/argue for the inclusion of Holy Scripture and THEN we move into
 its pages. There is no escaping this procedure, apparently. jd-Original Message-From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 03:36:27 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our midst  JD and Lance are infectedOther than being about 25 years out of date (Francis Schaeffer a 'giant'?) it is good to note that people know who he was.- Original Message -   From: ShieldsFamily   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: December 03, 2005 23:21  Subject:

RE: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm

[Kevin Deegan]

Thank you.ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Of course not. izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 3:39 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htmYou did not answer the question.Do you think everyone who goes to Church on Sunday is worshipping the BEAST?  ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin, I can’t speak for the SDA’s as I’ve never met one. I can only speak for myself, and I have not replaced the gift of Jesus with the Saturday Sabbath. I just read the ten commandments and there it was. I tried it. I liked it. I still do. I can’t find anywhere that God’s word revoked it. Man doesn’t esteem it, but apparently the Lord does. Jesus never violated it; he just didn’t follow man-made added-on rules about it—he kept it the way God intends us to keep it if we want the blessings of it. So I don’t argue about it with people who take offense at it—that’s between you and the Word. May each one of us answer
 to our own Master. izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 6:51 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm  The gift is Jesus Christ NOT Sturday!  I believe the SDA have replaced Jesus with the SATURDAY Sabbath only  In fact one of the doctrines of Devils is "commanding to
 abstain" from meats.  Any SDA preach such?Do you think everyone who goes to Church on Sunday is worshipping the BEAST?  AFA a Sabbath  MK 2 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples
 began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.Every day is Holy unto
 the Lord!  RM 14 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike.  ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I accept the Saturday sabbath as a gift from God; given in His commandments. And a precious gift at that. I only wish I kept it better than I do. Are you ridiculing the sabbath, Kevin? izFrom:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 4:47 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm  By the way has anyone out there accepted this "GIFT", the saturday
 sabbath?Or was it a different gift?Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:1 Tim 4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of
 devils; ...Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meatshttp://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q18.htmSDA say Sunday Church attendance is the MARK of the Beast and IDOLATRY! “If we find tonight that 95% of us sitting here and definitely 95% of everybody in this city, is worshipping the beast all the time, don’t let it surprise you folks. Cause that’s exactly what God said and that’s exactly what we are going to find out as we go through this study tonight. So be prepared for it, God’s already warned us and the vast majority of us sitting here tonight are going to find out we too have been deceived by the beast, and we too have been worshipping and following after the beast.” LEO SCHREVEN SDA Revelation Seminar  "Sunday-keeping must be the mark of the beast." ... "The reception of his mark must be something that involves the greatest offense that can be committed against God." The Marvel of Nations, Elder U. Smith pages 170, 183"Here we find the mark of the beast. The very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, on the part of the
 Catholic church, without any authority from the Bible." Ellen G. White, The Mark of the Beast, page 23 "The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the Papacy. It is the mark of the beast." Advent Review, Vol. I, No. 2, August, 1850 "The change of the Sabbath is the sign or mark of the authority of the Romish church." ... "The keeping of the counterfeit Sabbath is the reception of the mark." Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, Vol.. 4, page 281. "Sunday-keeping is an ins

Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE

[Kevin Deegan]

Interesting Subject, if one looks into it,proof positivethat the CHARACTER of the LDS god is not the same CHARACTER as the God of the Bible.Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  DAVEH: May I suggest another topic of interest to me? I am curious as to if any of you folks ever consider what would have happened IF Adam and Eve had not transgressed. Does that discussion ever come up with you folks?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Look -- what are we going to discuss here on TT? Wehave pretty much said all that can be said about
 any number of subjects.jd--   ~~~  Dave Hansen  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.langlitz.com  ~~~  If you wish to receive  things I find interesting,  I maintain six email lists...  JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,  STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.  
		 Yahoo! Personals 
Skip the bars and set-ups and start using Yahoo! Personals for free

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm

[Kevin Deegan]

But these guys are not here to teach Mormon Doctrine.  Why not just get it from the horses mouth?  http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/NewTestament/Ephesians2.htm  But only at this point, when we finally realize our inability to perfect and save ourselves, when we finally realize our truly desperate situation here in mortality and our need to be saved from it by some outside intervention—only then can we fully appreciate the One who comes to save.  “At that point, the Savior steps in and says, ‘So you've done all you can do, but it's not enough. Well, don't despair. I'll tell you what, let's try a different arrangement. How much do you have? How much can fairly be expected
 of you? You give me exactly that much (the whole sixty-one cents) and do all you can do, and I will provide the rest for now. You give me all you've got and a hug and a kiss (that is, make this a personal relationship), and the kingdom is yours! …You do everything you can do, and I'll do what you can't yet do. Between the two of us, we'll have it all covered. You will be one hundred percent justified.’” (Stephen E. Robinson, Believing Christ: The Parable of the Bicycle and Other Good News [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1992], 31-33.)Jesus is not just the door he is the PAYMENT in full you will not OFFER your repentance as payment in part nor full   HB 10 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.  Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.JESUS PAID IT ALL! Not the TWO of us!  But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for everThis Perverted teaching will take you right to Hell  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  In a message dated 12/4/2005 4:51:05 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 
 Where’d you get that quote—Jsmith? iz  -therefore it hath an end in me.  Blainerb Izzy, I can see you will not accept anything from Joseph Smith or whatever from Mormon writings, but let's just reason
 together, OK?   Just ask yourself this question:if I pay you an agreed upon sum for a car, isn't the deal ended when I pay up? In other words, If I make a deal, or, a contract (covenant), between myself and another person, once the terms of the contract have been fulfilled, wouldn't that end it??Likewise, why would there be any need tocontinue a covenant/law that was, in the first place, given toteach ofJesus Christ, if the covenant/law was fulfilled in Him? It should be a forgone conclusion that the law will end upon its being
 fulfilled. If it has done its job, why continue with it? See below, if you have the stomach for reading Mormon's record of the sayings of Jesus Christ to the American-based children of Israel:  3 Nephi 12:17; 15:3-5Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. . . . Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he that covenanted with my people Israel; Therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfill the law. Therefore it hath an end (in
 me).If you have read this far, maybe you might read further (you might as well, since you're almost through anyway :)"3 Nephi 9:18-20 I am the light and the life of the world . . .  And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices or burnt offerings.  And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit . . . 
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping 

RE: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE

[Kevin Deegan]

famous quoutes  I am just here to learn AND teach a little LDS DOCTRINE!!!http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/bible/people/adam_lds_eom.htmThe Prophet Joseph Smith taught that Michael, spoken of in the Bible (Dan. 10:13; Jude 1:9; Rev. 12:7), is Adam. In his premortal life, Adam received the priesthood (TPJS, p. 157), was taught the plan of God (TPJS, p. 167), and
 was appointed to be the head of the human family (TPJS, p. 158). He participated in the creation of the earth and occupied a position of authority next to Jesus Christ (TPJS, p. 158), under whose direction he at all times functions (DC 78:16). He led the forces of righteousness against the devil "and his angels," who were overcome and expelled from heaven (see War in Heaven).  Latter-day scriptures attest that Adam is a son of God, that his physical body was created by the Gods in their own image and placed in the Garden of Eden (Moses 6:9, 22; Abr. 5:7-11; TPJS, p. 345-53; cf. 2 Ne. 2:14-19). In this physical-spiritual state in Eden, Adam was called the "first man" (Moses 1:34) and given responsibility to dress the garden and "open the way of the world" (TPJS, p. 12). He was given dominion and responsibility over the earth,
 and he gave names to its creatures (Moses 3:19). He was joined with Eve in marriage (Abr. 5:4-19), but in their premortal condition "they would have had no children" (2 Ne. 2:23). Adam received the grand keys of the priesthood (Abr., Facsimile 2, Fig. 3), and its ordinances were confirmed upon Adam and Eve (cf. TPJS, p. 167).  (Mormon Logic now In order to Obey they Disobeyed!)  In order to obey the command of God to multiply and people the earth, Adam and Eve transgressed the law. Their deliberate action resulted in their fall (see Fall of Adam), and they were expelled from the garden. "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy" (2 Ne. 2:25). Thus, their action precipitated, as
 God had planned, the mortal phase of the Plan of Salvation.  The Mormon 'god' planned for them to SIN in fact He made it the ONLY Option This would be totally out of character for the God of the Bible.ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:In a word: No. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 8:42 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AEDAVEH: May I suggest another topic of interest to me? I am curious as to if any of you folks ever consider what would have happened IF Adam and Eve had not transgressed. Does that discussion ever come up with you folks?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Look -- what are we going to discuss here on TT? Wehave pretty much said all that can be said about any number of subjects.jd-- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings
 I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.  
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping 

Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE

[Kevin Deegan]

LOL  New Subject?  http://www.mail-archive.com/cgi-bin/htsearch?method=andformat=shortconfig=truthtalk_mail_innglory_orgrestrict=exclude=words=adam+transgressedDave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  DAVEH: May I suggest another topic of interest to me? I am curious as to if any of you folks ever consider what would have happened IF Adam and Eve had not transgressed. Does that discussion ever come up with you folks?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Look -- what are we going to discuss here on TT? Wehave pretty much said all that can be said about any number of subjects.jd--   ~~~  Dave Hansen  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.langlitz.com  ~~~  If you wish to receive  things I find interesting,  I maintain six email lists...  JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,  STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.  
		 Yahoo! Personals 
Let fate take it's course directly to your email. 
See who's waiting for you Yahoo! Personals

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm

[Kevin Deegan]

  1 Tim 4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; ...  Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meatshttp://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q18.htmSDA say Sunday Church attendance is the MARK of the Beast and IDOLATRY! “If we find tonight that 95% of us sitting here and definitely 95% of everybody in this city, is worshipping the beast all the time, don’t let it surprise you folks. Cause that’s exactly what God said and that’s exactly what we are going to find out as we go through this study tonight. So be prepared for it, God’s already warned us and the vast majority of us sitting here tonight are going to find out we too have been
 deceived by the beast, and we too have been worshipping and following after the beast.” LEO SCHREVEN SDA Revelation Seminar  "Sunday-keeping must be the mark of the beast." ... "The reception of his mark must be something that involves the greatest offense that can be committed against God." The Marvel of Nations, Elder U. Smith pages 170, 183"Here we find the mark of the beast. The very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, on the part of the Catholic church, without any authority from the Bible." Ellen G. White, The Mark of the Beast,
 page 23 "The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the Papacy. It is the mark of the beast." Advent Review, Vol. I, No. 2, August, 1850 "The change of the Sabbath is the sign or mark of the authority of the Romish church." ... "The keeping of the counterfeit Sabbath is the reception of the mark." Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, Vol.. 4, page 281. "Sunday-keeping is an institution of the first beast, and ALL who submit to obey this institution emphatically worship the first beast and receive his mark, 'the mark of the beast.'  Those who worship the beast and his image by observing the first day are certainly idolaters, as were the worshippers of the golden calf." Advent Review Extra, pages 10 and 11, August, 1850“The eating of pork has aroused and strengthened a most deadly humor which is in the systemNEVER SHOULD ONE MORSEL OF SWINE'S FLESH BE PLACED UPON YOUR TABLE” Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 2, pp. 94, 96Mrs. White believed God was instructing her in matters of diet as she wrote to some friends “when the selfishness of taking the lives of animals to gratify a perverted taste was presented to me by a Catholic woman, kneeling at my feet, I felt ashamed and I distressed—I saw it in a new light, and I said, I will no longer patronize the butchers. I will not have the flesh of corpses on my table.” Prophetess of Health; Ellen G. White by Ronald L. Numbers, p. 172   Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I haven't a clue why Lance sent this, I asked him about it myself.  Don't know what Dave Hunt is, if anything but I do know he is NOT SDA and I don't believe Lance is either.  He couldn't be universalist if he were. I have a friend who began attending a SDA church abt 3yrs ago.  They are prone to be vegetarian and are quite legalistic about "jewelry and worldliness" but ATST she  tells me they have no problems with expensive tiffany lamps and big brooches. Sat sabbath is a must.On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 08:36:25 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Lance why did you send this? Is Dave Hunt a 7th Day? Other than the Ellen White/prophecy stuff, it sounds pretty good to me. :-) iz  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 5:18 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [TruthTalk] JUDY!! Y'all have convinced me this very morning!

[Kevin Deegan]

Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Vacuity thy name is JUDY!From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 10:13:50 -0500Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:Judy asks 'DID YOU BRING IT UP AS AN ACCUSATION?"Most assuredly NOT! I've also seen it and, didn't much care for it. Didja ever think that you so readily assume the 'accusatory' 'cause that's what y'all do?
		 Yahoo! Personals 
Skip the bars and set-ups and start using Yahoo! Personals for free

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

[Kevin Deegan]

Hero of the FAITHless?  "The Bible is God's Word so far as God lets it be his Word" (Barth, Church Dogmatics, I / 2, 123)"THE WORD WHICH ENTERS HUMAN EARS AND IS UTTERED BY HUMAN LIPS, IS THE WORD OF GOD--ONLY WHEN THE MIRACLE TAKES PLACE. OTHERWISE, IT IS JUST A HUMAN WORD LIKE ANY OTHER. ... What stands there, in the pages of the Bible, is the witness to the Word of God ... God can be called truth only when 'truth' is understood in the sense of the Greek word 'aletheia'" (Barth, Romans)."If you ask about God and if I am really to tell about him, dialectic is all that can be expected from me. ... Neither my affirmation nor my denial lays claim to being God's truth. Neither one is more than a witness to that truth which stands in the center, between every Yes and No. And therefore I have never affirmed without denying and never denied without affirming, for neither affirmation
 nor denial can be final. If my witness to the final answer you are seeking does not satisfy you, I am sorry. It may be that my witness to it is not yet sufficiently clear, that is, that I have not limited the Yes by the No and the No by the Yes incisively enough to set aside all misunderstanding-- incisively enough to let you see that nothing is left except that upon which the Yes and the No, and the No and the Yes, depend. But it may also be that your refusal of my answer arises from your not having really asked your question, from your not having asked about God--for otherwise we should understand each other" (Karl Barth, The Word of God and the Word of Man, Pilgrim Press, p. 209).http://www.voxpopuli.org/book_2_8.phpKarl Barth was asked did he have the same reservations about St. Joseph as about Our Lady. "Not at all" he replied; "I love St. Joseph. I rejoiced when John XIII inserted his name
 in the Roman Canon. I intend to ask Paul VI to give him prominence," and then a memorable word, "He protected the Child; he will protect the Church." More radically direct was the very sharp criticism of the Marian text by J.J. von Almen of Neuchatel University, Pastor of the Swiss Reformed Church, who held that the Council had no right to eliminate St. Joseph. He was the guarantor before Israel of the messianic tradition and he is the model of male sanctity as is Our Lady of female holiness."The assumption that Jesus is the Christ (1.4) is, in the strictest sense of the word, an assumption, void of any content that can be comprehended by us" (Barth, Romans, p. 36)."THIS TOMB MAY PROVE TO BE DEFINITELY CLOSED OR AN EMPTY TOMB: IT IS REALLY A MATTER OF INDIFFERENCE." (Barth, The Resurrection of the Dead, p. 135)."In a later letter to Gordon W. Clark, Carl F.H. Henry
 gave a pointed account of the occasion. When he, Henry, asked Barth whether the resurrection event was of such a nature in covering it, that it would have been regarded in the same sense in which the man on the street understands news, Barth became visibly angry and asked, sarcastically, 'Did you say Christianity Today or Christianity yesterday?' He then continued by saying that 'the resurrection of Jesus had significance only for His disciples,' implying that it had no significance to the world. The religious editor of United Press International, Louis Cassels, said upon leaving, 'We got Barth's answer; it was 'Nein' [the German word for 'no']' (Gordon H. Clark, Historiography--Secular and Religious, The Craig Press, 1972, reprinted in Christian News Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 1480).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 (I, 2, 509).   In common with the creation storythe history of the resurrection has to be regarded as "saga" or "legend." The death of Jesus Christ can certainly be thought of as history in the modern sense, but not the resurrection (IV, 1, 336).   The vulnerability of the Bible, i.e., its capacity for error, also extends to its religious or theological content (I, 1,509). The "legend" of the finding of the empty tomb is not of itself and as such the attestation of Jesus Christ as he showed himself alive after his death. It is ancillary to this attestation. The one can be as little verified "historically" as the other. Certainly the empty tomb cannot serve as an "historical" proof (IV, 1, 341). The prophets and apostles as such, even in their office,… were real historical men as we are, and … Actually guilty of
 error in their spoken and written word (Church Dogmatics, I, 2, 528-529).Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  I know he would not pledge allegiance to Hitler which is noteworthy but the very fact thatHitler and his occult socialist system gainedthat much control in his country somewhat proves the impotency of his message. He did teach at a University there - right? So he influenced others with his unbelief. God judges Barth the man. I evaluate Barf the theologian who does not believe God's Word to be 

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

[Kevin Deegan]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/special/131christians/barth.html  American evangelicals have been skeptical of Barth because he refused to consider the written Word "infallible" (he believed only Jesus was). Others gave up on Barth's theology because it overemphasized God's transcendance (to the point that some former Barthians began championing the "death of God"). The Bible isin matters pertaining to spirituality andin matters of science and history.  No matter what Barfh said.Genesis is among other things a HIStory book!PS 119 160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 (something that is an outright lie) while, at the same time, having no clue (talking about you, Judy) as to a definition for "inspiration." Heck, you can't even tell the difference
 between inspiration and revelation !!! Don't waste our time with some internet BSquotation that seems to show that Barth is in line with your claim about inerrancy. The fact of the matter is this : I challenge you to find a statement of Barth in his Dogmatics that challenges the wording of scripture and places his opinion above holy writ.   -Original Message- From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc:
 TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:10:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)I know he would not pledge allegiance to Hitler which is noteworthy but the very fact thatHitler and his occult socialist system gainedthat much control in his country somewhat proves the impotency of his message. He did teach at a University there - right? So he influenced others with his unbelief. God judges Barth the man. I evaluate Barf the theologian who does not believe God's Word to be inerrant.  On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:05:01 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: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 Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:46:22 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once aga in employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)   
 I am not in any position to judge Barf's personal life and neither are you Lance. Calvins' was a bit more public.  And didn't you write the following "I've met the 'Huntmeister' and, we spoke. He's big into this 'end times' drivel. . "  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, isn't the
 above a truly shallow, petulant, and uniformed caricature reprehensible?  On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:35:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:This man served our Lord faithfully throughout his life as did John Calvin. To take note of these truly shallow, petulant, and uniformed caricatures is reprehensible. What 'spirit' inhabits such an one as this? Take care Judy"From: Judy Taylor Footnotes??
 Only if the original thought makes any sense. Barf definitely would not qualify.  On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 06:06:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:One would not have thought you so easily impressed, Judy. Ya wants footnotes? May I suggest Karl Barth? I've met the 'Huntmeister' and, we spoke. He's big into this 'end times' drivel. .judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
 Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)   judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
 Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)   judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
 Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)  __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

[Kevin Deegan]

Does this make Barfh qualify as a Monstrous Miscreant?CD = Church DogmaticsLike 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). In common with the creation storythe history of the resurrection has to be regarded   as "saga" or "legend." The death of Jesus Christ can certainly be thought of as   history in the modern sense, but not the resurrection (CD IV, 1, 336). The vulnerability of the Bible, i.e., its capacity for error, also extends to its   religious or theological content (CD I, 1,509). The "legend" of the finding of the empty
 tomb is not of itself and as such the   attestation of Jesus Christ as he showed himself alive after his death. It is   ancillary to this attestation. The one can be as little verified "historically" as   the other. Certainly the empty tomb cannot serve as an "historical" proof (CD IV, 1,   341). The prophets and apostles as such, even in their office,… were real historical men   as we are, and … Actually guilty of error in their spoken and written word (CD I, 2, 528-529).[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:-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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Frankly, the most ridiculous criticism of Barth I have ever seen.  An absolutely laughable commentary.It's a short note and hardly a commentary but have a good laugh on me ...Barth's regard for the scripture's far exceeds anything I have read in your post.   He appeals to no other source of information.When you don't believe your source to be accurate it opens the door to adding or subtracting at will. Stop with the lie, Judy. You have nothing to back up your claim but when has that slowed you down in the past. You want Barth to be a threat THEREFORE he is. He spent his lifetime presenting the Message of scripture -- a lifetime. He is all about the biblical message and you are all about making up stuff. Quite a difference. You criticize him for denying the infallibility of
 scripture (something that is an outright lie) while, at the same time, having no clue (talking about you, Judy) as to a definition for "inspiration." Heck, you can't even tell the difference between inspiration and revelation !!! The Holy Spirit is both inspiration and the source of divine revelation JD.Who has no clue? There's that old accuser again. In this case, the old accuser is you. Your comment verifies my point and makes no statement concerning Barth.  Don't waste our time with some internet BSquotation that seems to show that Barth
 is in line with your claim about inerrancy.Correction: Barth is NOT in line with my claim that the scriptures are inerrant. Prove it. The fact of the matter is this : I challenge you to find a statement of Barth in his Dogmatics that challenges the wording of scripture and places his opinion above holy writ. You really think I would spend time wadingthrough his "dogmatics" to find something like that for you to shoot down JD? So you admit that you have NOTHING against Barth
 except your own judgmentalism. Thanks. 'Nough said.   From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com I know he would not pledge allegiance to Hitler which is noteworthy but the very fact thatHitler and his occult socialist system gainedthat much control in his country somewhat proves the impotency of his message. He did teach at a University there - right? So he influenced others with his unbelief. God judges Barth the man. I evaluate Barf the theologian who does not believe God's Word to be inerrant.  __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

[Kevin Deegan]

 I am speaking as a pastor. I do agree that such conduct isharmful and wrong spirited. Ido notbelieve that Jezebel isa word that should be used with you in mind, for any reason. Now, withthat statement of fact in mind -- go back and see 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 confrontation." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 14:54:27 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: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
 speaks these words as would a well trained parrot. OK JD; I publicly apologize for using a derogatory term to describe one of your religious mentors. However, you are far from clean yourself in this area. Is calling me a "well trained parrot" kind?As Perry has pointed out, I am here on TT.  Barth is not. I don't care where Barth is not. I accept your apology. I assume it is genuine. I did not call you a "well trained parrot," did I? It was a reference to the fact that these words were actually Kevin's. Having said that, do you not get the point of my post? Has it completely missed you? Of course giving comparison to YOUR WORDS ( .. speaks these words as would a well
 trained parrot ... ") is inflaminary. I will apologrize for making that comparison. Read on, Judy. She has so committed herself to the disgracing of Barth as to render her comments bigoted and biased -- words and judgments written without personal knowing. I regard these wordsas both ignorant and stupid -- and the gloryof it all is that I get to say such things without crossing the line of "ad hom"because I have limited my attack to her words and not to her person. Asinine. Such a line solves no problems and allows the kind of negative immaturity that typifies TT discussions . The above
 is an "ignorant" statement. The whole "inerrancy movement" was to counteract the unbelief of the likes of Karl Barth and the damage his teachings and writings had done and were doing to the evangelical churches. Why are you so quick to offend the living in taking up an offense for the dead. It makes no sense at all. The "inerrancy movement" is a figment of your mind. It pre-dates Barth by many years. I do not know who gets credit for coming up with the words "verbal / plenary" -- but I am confident that these were not created to fight Barth. More than this, you can give me no example of Barth's harmful effects. Show me from his words  put up or, well, shut up!!!"Barf" is vomit, Perry. It no
 more is beyond "ad hom" than calling Judy Jezebel. She is not a whore and Barth is not a pile of vomit. If you disagree, then I will argue that Jezebel decribes the whoring words of one who has prostituted the truth for a lie.and it will become a part of my presentations here on TT. I will use it to describe Judy in the same sense that The Revelations uses the word. What do you think? jdI'm not Perry but I would think as a grown adult who claims to be a believingpastor that you should know better
 JDwould someone explain to this lovely woman just what I was doing with the above. I am speaking as a pastor. I do agree that such conduct isharmful and wrong spirited. Ido notbelieve that Jezebel isa word that should be used with you in mind, for any reason. Now, withthat statement of fact in mind -- go back and see if youcan figure outwhat I am trying to accomplish in the above?jdFrom: Charles Perry Locke cpl2602@hotmail.com  John, there are many dimensions to the ad-hominem argument on which Webster's does not elaborate. In fact, the way the ad hominem attack is most often used on TT is to demean the opponent for 1) hoping to discredit them to the point that their arguments seem untrustworthy, 2) to throw a red herring into the argument to avoid answering the opponent's argument, and 3) is almost alays a sign of defeat in the argumentand "Jezebel" is one such ad-hominem.While "Barf" for "Barth" is indeed an ad hominem, it is meant to discredit a third party to which the opponent has
 referred as an authority. However, it is not intended to demean t he opponent him/herself. Terry did the same by saying Calvin would make a good Muslim. I do not consider these critical ad-hominems since they are not intended to hurt or 

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm

[Kevin Deegan]

By the way has anyone out there accepted this "GIFT", the saturday sabbath?  Or was it a different gift?Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  1 Tim 4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; ...  Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meatshttp://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q18.htmSDA say Sunday Church attendance is the MARK of the Beast and IDOLATRY! “If we find tonight that 95% of us sitting here and definitely 95% of everybody in this city, is worshipping the beast
 all the time, don’t let it surprise you folks. Cause that’s exactly what God said and that’s exactly what we are going to find out as we go through this study tonight. So be prepared for it, God’s already warned us and the vast majority of us sitting here tonight are going to find out we too have been deceived by the beast, and we too have been worshipping and following after the beast.” LEO SCHREVEN SDA Revelation Seminar  "Sunday-keeping must be the mark of the beast." ... "The reception of his mark must be something that involves the greatest offense that can be committed against God." The Marvel of Nations, Elder U. Smith
 pages 170, 183"Here we find the mark of the beast. The very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, on the part of the Catholic church, without any authority from the Bible." Ellen G. White, The Mark of the Beast, page 23 "The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the Papacy. It is the mark of the beast." Advent Review, Vol. I, No. 2, August, 1850 "The change of the Sabbath is the sign or mark of the authority of the Romish church." ... "The keeping of the counterfeit Sabbath is the reception of the mark." Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, Vol.. 4, page 281. "Sunday-keeping is an institution of the first beast, and ALL who submit to obey this institution emphatically worship the first
 beast and receive his mark, 'the mark of the beast.'  Those who worship the beast and his image by observing the first day are certainly idolaters, as were the worshippers of the golden calf." Advent Review Extra, pages 10 and 11, August, 1850“The eating of pork has aroused and strengthened a most deadly humor which is in the systemNEVER SHOULD ONE MORSEL OF SWINE'S FLESH BE PLACED UPON YOUR TABLE” Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 2, pp. 94, 96Mrs. White believed God was instructing her in matters of diet as she wrote to some friends “when the selfishness of taking the lives of animals to gratify a perverted taste was presented to me by a Catholic woman, kneeling at my feet, I felt ashamed and I distressed—I saw it in a new light, and I said, I will no longer patronize the butchers. I will not have the flesh of corpses on my table.” Prophetess of Health; Ellen G. White by Ronald L. Numbers, p. 172   Judy Taylor
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I haven't a clue why Lance sent this, I asked him about it myself.  Don't know what Dave Hunt is, if anything but I do know he is NOT SDA and I don't believe Lance is either.  He couldn't be universalist if he were. I have a friend who began attending a SDA church abt 3yrs ago.  They are prone to be vegetarian and are quite legalistic about "jewelry and worldliness" but ATST she 
 tells me they have no problems with expensive tiffany lamps and big brooches. Sat sabbath is a must.On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 08:36:25 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Lance why did you send this? Is Dave Hunt a 7th Day? Other than the Ellen White/prophecy stuff, it sounds pretty good to me. :-) iz  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 5:18 AMTo:
 TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm  __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com   __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

[Kevin Deegan]

To the FAITHless it would seem of no big import to consider parts of the Bible as just "Legend".They are part of the many thatconsider the Bible as Saga  Legend,whats the big deal?Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Thanks Kevin;   The Barthians have been at it all day today, so glad to see you are still about... What an unbelieving mess  this is. I can not imagine anyone allowing this man to mediate between himself and God. Can you??On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:49:36 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Hero of the FAITHless?  "The Bible is God's Word so far as God lets it be his Word" (Barth, Church Dogmatics, I / 2, 123)"THE WORD WHICH ENTERS HUMAN EARS AND IS UTTERED BY HUMAN LIPS, IS THE WORD OF GOD--ONLY WHEN THE MIRACLE TAKES PLACE. OTHERWISE, IT IS JUST A HUMAN WORD LIKE ANY OTHER. ... What stands there, in the pages of the Bible, is the witness to the Word of God ... God can be called truth only when 'truth' is understood in the sense of the Greek word 'aletheia'" (Barth, Romans)."If you ask about God and if I am really to tell about him, dialectic is all that can be expected from me. ... Neither my affirmation nor my denial lays claim to being God's truth. Neither one is more than a witness to that truth which stands in the center, between every Yes and No. And therefore I have never
 affirmed without denying and never denied without affirming, for neither affirmation nor denial can be final. If my witness to the final answer you are seeking does not satisfy you, I am sorry. It may be that my witness to it is not yet sufficiently clear, that is, that I have not limited the Yes by the No and the No by the Yes incisively enough to set aside all misunderstanding-- incisively enough to let you see that nothing is left except that upon which the Yes and the No, and the No and the Yes, depend. But it may also be that your refusal of my answer arises from your not having really asked your question, from your not having asked about God--for otherwise we should understand each other" (Karl Barth, The Word of God and the Word of Man, Pilgrim Press, p. 209).http://www.voxpopuli.org/book_2_8.phpKarl Barth was asked did he have the same reservations about St. Joseph as about Our Lady. "Not
 at all" he replied; "I love St. Joseph. I rejoiced when John XIII inserted his name in the Roman Canon. I intend to ask Paul VI to give him prominence," and then a memorable word, "He protected the Child; he will protect the Church." More radically direct was the very sharp criticism of the Marian text by J.J. von Almen of Neuchatel University, Pastor of the Swiss Reformed Church, who held that the Council had no right to eliminate St. Joseph. He was the guarantor before Israel of the messianic tradition and he is the model of male sanctity as is Our Lady of female holiness."The assumption that Jesus is the Christ (1.4) is, in the strictest sense of the word, an assumption, void of any content that can be comprehended by us" (Barth, Romans, p. 36)."THIS TOMB MAY PROVE TO BE DEFINITELY CLOSED OR AN EMPTY TOMB: IT IS REALLY A MATTER OF INDIFFERENCE." (Barth, The Resurrection of the Dead, p.
 135)."In a later letter to Gordon W. Clark, Carl F.H. Henry gave a pointed account of the occasion. When he, Henry, asked Barth whether the resurrection event was of such a nature in covering it, that it would have been regarded in the same sense in which the man on the street understands news, Barth became visibly angry and asked, sarcastically, 'Did you say Christianity Today or Christianity yesterday?' He then continued by saying that 'the resurrection of Jesus had significance only for His disciples,' implying that it had no significance to the world. The religious editor of United Press International, Louis Cassels, said upon leaving, 'We got Barth's answer; it was 'Nein' [the German word for 'no']' (Gordon H. Clark, Historiography--Secular and Religious, The Craig Press, 1972, reprinted in Christian News Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 1480).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 (I, 2, 509).   In common with the creation storythe history of the resurrection has to be regarded as "saga" or "legend." The death of Jesus Christ can certainly be thought of as history in the modern sense, but not the resurrection (IV, 1, 336).   The vulnerability of the Bible, i.e., its capacity for error, also extends to its religious or theological content (I, 1,509).. The "legend" of the finding of the empty tomb is not of itself and as such the attestation of Jesus Christ as he showed himself alive after his death. It is ancillary to this attestation. The one can be as little verified "historically" as the other. Certainly the empty tomb cannot ser

Re: [TruthTalk] Virtue of Name Calling

[Kevin Deegan]

  The Virtue of Name-Calling  John W. Robbins  American Christians of the twentieth century are, for the most part, a pusillanimous bunch. About the only time they shed their timidity is in order to attack a fellow Christian who is valiant in defense of the truth. A Christian like that is perceived as a threat to the "unity of believers" and the "peace of the church." Confronted with such a manifest threat to unity and peace, some professed Christians can be quite vindictive and vicious, as J. Gresham Machen learned earlier in this century and as Harold Lindsell is learning now.  Some time ago a reader wrote to the editors of Present Truth (now Verdict) magazine to protest the magazine’s attitude toward Karl Barth. In his letter, the reader referred to Barth as a
 "monstrous miscreant," thereby violating the first commandment of polite society: Never call people names (unless, of course, those people are ignorant fundamentalists). The editor, in a stern and curt rebuke, reprimanded the reader, saying, "We suggest, sir, that you stick to judging Barth’s theology and not his person." That is, never call people names. Name-calling is not only non-Christian, it is worse: It is prima facie evidence of bad taste, and whatever Christians do, they must never, no never, give the impression that they are of low birth.  Two of the most shocking things for a twentieth-century American Christian to read are the works of Martin Luther and John Calvin, for these men—who were valiant for the truth—did not hesitate to call people names. Are Luther and Calvin wrong and the editors of Present Truth right? The only way for a Christian to discover the answer is to examine the
 Scriptures.  Unfortunately, most professed Christians today seem never to have gotten past Matthew 7. That’s too bad, for they should proceed to read Matthew 23. In that chapter alone, Christ calls the scribes and Pharisees names 16 times. The names are "hypocrites" (7 times), "son of Hell" (once),"blind guides" (twice), "fools and blind" (3 times), "whited sepulchres" (once), "serpents" (once), and "offspring of vipers" (once). Since Christ was without sin, we may deduce by good and necessary consequence that name-calling as such is not a sin. Since everything Christ did was righteous and virtuous, we may deduce by good and necessary consequence that accurate name-calling is a virtue.  But Christ is not the only example. John, who some professed Christians love to quote because they misunderstand and misrepresent what he says about love, calls certain persons known to his
 readers "liars" and "antichrists." Those sensitive souls who flinch when they read chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession identifying the pope as antichrist should read 1 John 2 and 2 John. John was not talking about someone far off in Rome; he was referring to persons known to his readers.  Just AD HOMS?  Then there is Paul, who in 1 Corinthians corrected those at Corinth who denied the resurrection. In chapter 15, verse 36, he refers to one objector as a fool. And can we not conclude from Psalms 14:1 and 53:1 that Madalyn O’Hair, for example, is a fool? Further, in 1 Timothy 4:2 Paul refers to "hypocritical liars" and in 5:13 he writes of "gossips and busybodies." Those who object to name-calling must object to the practice of Jesus, Paul, and John, among many others. 
 The obvious question, which the perceptive reader has already asked, is, what shall we do with Matthew 5:22:"Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be liable to the Sanhedrin; but whoever shall say, Fool, shall be liable to the fire of Hell." Does not this verse, just as Matthew 7:1does with judging and Matthew 5:34-37 do with swearing, prohibit all name-calling? The answer, equally obvious, is no. Such an interpretation would create irreconcilable contradictions in the Bible. Just as Matthew 7:1 does not prohibit accurate judging and Matthew 5:34-37 do not prohibit legitimate swearing, neither does Matthew 5:22 prohibit accurate name-calling. It is not name-calling per se that is proscribed, but inaccurate name-calling. Jesus, John, and Paul used names accurately and achieved a specific purpose: telling the truth.  Name-calling, accurately done, is not
 only not a sin, it is a virtue. It is identifying a person for what he is, and this cannot be done except by doing it. Anyone who studies the examples quoted here or any of the many other examples in the Bible will find that the name is used in conjunction with stated reasons for using it. The reasons constitute an argument, and the name is a conclusion. Those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh are antichrists and liars. Those who deny the resurrection are fools, and so on. The reluctance to call names is a type of reluctance to draw valid conclusions from the evidence; it is an attempt to "curb logic," to use the neo-orthodox phrase. As such, it is but another example of the anti rationalism of our age.  To return to our original example, the editors 

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

[Kevin Deegan]

I see this Philosophy as the same as PC Tolerance  Should we call SIN by it's name?  Should we call a Spade a Spade?  Is a Cultist to be called so?  How about False Teachers?  False Prophets?  For Instance, Nice Christians DO NOT call them Sodomites like the Bible does!  Should we call you a Christian? Only positive name calling allowed?  This Philosophy provides a breeding ground for False Teachings and therefore these very same False teachers arethe BIGGEST proponents of such.  Don't Judge ya know!Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  What do I think? Well, I
 still think both the "barf" reference and the "Jezebel" reference are ad hominem references.One aspect of the meaning on "jezebel" may include a characteristic that you feel applies to Judy, but since there are many dimensions to the word, other uses of the word will undoubtedly come to mind. This is no different than Lance's saying that Judy would make a good Muslim. While he may feel that one of the characteristics of muslims applies to Judy, to say that she would make a good muslim brings to mind many other undesirable characteristics.Did you like it when Jim Elsman called you "butterball"? There may of been some nuance of that which Elsman felt was true, but I did not feel like it gave him a right to call you that.I think it all amounts to name-calling, which is ad-hominem in nature.PerryFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo:
 TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:54:27 -0500Comments concerning Webster are correct, I am sure. But I included the only definition Webster 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 speaks these words as would a well trained parrot. She has so committed herself to the disgracing of Barth as to render her comments bigoted and biased -- words and judgments written without personal knowing. I regard these words as both ignorant and stupid -- and the glory of it all is that I get to say such things without crossing the line of "ad hom" because I have limited my attack to her words and not to her person.
 Asinine. Such a line solves no problems and allows the kind of negative immaturity that typifies TT discussions ."Barf" is vomit, Perry. It no more is beyond "ad hom" than calling Judy Jezebel. She is not a whore and Barth is not a pile of vomit. If you disagree, then I will argue that Jezebel decribes the whoring words of one who has prostituted the truth for a lie.and it will become a part of my presentations here on TT. I will use it to describe Judy in the same sense that The Revelations uses the word.What do you think?jd-Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:36:14 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)John, there are many dimensions to the
 ad-hominem argument on which Webster's does not elaborate. In fact, the way the ad hominem attack is most often used on TT is to demean the opponent for 1) hoping to discredit them to the point that their arguments seem untrustworthy, 2) to throw a red herring into the argument to avoid answering the opponent's argument, and 3) is almost alays a sign of defeat in the argumentand "Jezebel" is one such ad-hominem.While "Barf" for "Barth" is indeed an ad hominem, it is meant to discredit a third party to which the opponent has referred as an authority. However, it is not intended to demean the opponent him/herself. Terry did the same by saying Calvin would make a good Muslim. I do not consider these critical ad-hominems since they are not intended to hurt or demean other TT members, although they are still a poor technique in argumentation.Side bar...in my
 recent survey of the ad-hominem reference I was surprised to find that it is, in some types of arguments, regarded as an effective argument...and that was exclusively in political debate.Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf  for Karl Barth) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:12:22 -0500  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 Dictionary.)  -Original Message- From: Judy Taylor
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:53:12 -0500 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf  for Karl Barth)   

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

[Kevin Deegan]

I just posted your words.  It is then 'your' assessment that your words "besmurch" your "efforts"  Do you have a Ministry to "Judaizing punks"?There is nothing in the comments "Barthian" unless you refer to your weak SmokeScreen attempt to distract.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 young man, face to face (he lives near
 Fresno) while, you on the other hand, have decided to pull the comment out of context and misapply the larger effort. You have done nothing to save this boy and now, you intentionally besmurch by comments and efforts for what purpose? TO WIN AN ARGUMENT ABOUT BARTH.    -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 14:44:20 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth) I am speaking as a pastor. I do agree that such conduct isharmful and wrong spirited. Ido notbelieve that Jezebel isa word that should be used with you in mind, for any reason. Now, withthat statement of fact in mind
 -- go back and see 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 confrontation." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 14:54:27 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: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 speaks these words as would a well
 trained parrot. OK JD; I publicly apologize for using a derogatory term to describe one of your religious mentors. However, you are far from clean yourself in this area. Is calling me a "well trained parrot" kind?As Perry has pointed out, I am here on TT.  Barth is not. I don't care where Barth is not. I accept your apology. I assume it is genuine. I did not call you a "well trained parrot," did I? It was a reference to the fact that these words were actually Kevin's. Having said that, do you not get the point of my post? Has it completely missed you? Of course giving comparison to YOUR WORDS ( .. speaks these words as would a well trained parrot ... ") is
 inflaminary. I will apologrize for making that comparison. Read on, Judy. She has so committed herself to the disgracing of Barth as to render her comments bigoted and biased -- words and judgments written without personal knowing. I regard these wordsas both ignorant and stupid -- and the gloryof it all is that I get to say such things without crossing the line of "ad hom"because I have limited my attack to her words and not to her person. Asinine. Such a line solves no problems and allows the kind of negative immaturity that typifies TT discussions . The above is an "ignorant" statement. The
 whole "inerrancy movement" was to counteract the unbelief of the likes of Karl Barth and the damage his teachings and writings had done and were doing to the evangelical churches. Why are you so quick to offend the living in taking up an offense for the dead. It makes no sense at all. The "inerrancy movement" is a figment of your mind. It pre-dates Barth by many years. I do not know who gets credit for coming up with the words "verbal / plenary" -- but I am confident that these were not created to fight Barth. More than this, you can give me no example of Barth's harmful effects. Show me from his words  put up or, well, shut up!!!"Barf" is vomit, Perry. It no more is beyond "ad hom" than calling Judy Jezebel. She is not a whore and Barth is not a pile of vomit. If you disagree, then I will argue that Jezebel decribes the whoring words of one who has prostituted the truth for a lie.and it will become a part of my presentations here on TT. I will use it to describe Judy in the same sense that The Revelations uses the word. What do you think? jdI'm not Perry but I would think as a grown adult who clai

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

[Kevin Deegan]

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. OK I do not have a problem with how the Publisher placed the pages I havea problem with the mans theology. I care not if he carries your endorsement. Let me ask you Barthian scholars a question or two: Would you place Barth in the same mold as Schleiermacher. Do you consider him (Barth) to be the father of
 natural theology? Do you confirm that Barth was in agreement with Kant , especially as Kant is used in Ritschl ? What is Barth's stated - I said 'stated" -- beliefon the place and function of written scripture and the Living Christ? I already took a sip and found his theology PUTRIDand now you want me to take a few gulps I have a strong desire to avoid his unpleasantness, NO THANKS! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 ask you Barthian scholars a question or two: Would you place Barth in the same mold as Schleiermacher. Do you consider him (Barth) to be the father of natural theology? Do you confirm that Barth was in agreement with Kant , especially as Kant is used in Ritschl ? What is Barth's stated - I said 'stated" -- beliefon the place and function of written scripture and the Living Christ? Do either of
 you have a clue, or are we just all talk? Quick -- see if the internet can be of some help !!! I mean, if you aregoingto own up to the bar -- fine and good. Let's talk shop. Kevin or Judy? Still there?   Hello!!!??? That Barth believed in the resurrection is beyond doubt. That he believed that such a recorded historical event is beyond challenge is, also, quite clear, he didn't.For Barth, we accept the resurrection account by faith.More specifically, Barth, the person, believed in a literal resurrection of the death (and we are talking about the Christ.) Ditto for the written "word of God." We have taken the word "inspired" as applied to the protestant Bible and have created a teaching based on our view of logical necessity.We find no
 definition of scripture on TT or anywhere else, for that matter, that has any attachment to scripture. Scripture affirms itself to be "inspired" but gives not further discussion of the matter -- beyond the affirmation. Why? That should be an important question. Look at what we have done with our logical necessities. I mean, if God speaks or writes without error, then wecan cram the resurrection, the miracles, the ascension , the notion of eternal Sonship and "God in the
 flesh" -- we can force all this down the collective throats of the unbeliever !! And in so doing, we assert that faith is not required !!Heck, verbal / plenary inspiration is a fact that we can prove with the same assurance and methodolgy as we can prove or demonstrate 2 = 2 = 4. Nonsense !!! To make this argument is to deny faith as faith AND todenynb sp;faith as it functions for the foundations of science and even mathematics !!! Before a fact becomes "scientific fact," what must transpire? Research !! Experiment after experiment. And what is the motivating factor in such a course? FAITH. The scientist believes in his quest and
 continues for no other reason than that. What drives the mathematician as he works on the TOE? FAith -- perhaps blind faith !!A postulate is what if it not a statement of faith ?? !!! It is as if we fear "faith" as the foundation of "inspiration" and, so, we make up stuff and punish those who disagree. Or, we just lie about the opposition. We have nothing to fear of "faith alone" when it is applied to biblical "inerrancy" FAith is the single most important consideration in "what we intend to do next." Think about !!! jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:49:36 -0800
 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)Hero of the FAITHless?  "The Bible is God's Word so far as God lets it be his Word" (Barth, Church Dogmatics, I / 2, 123)"THE WORD WHICH ENTERS HUMAN EARS AND IS UTTERED BY HUMAN LIPS, IS THE WORD OF GOD--ONLY WHEN THE MIRACLE TAKES PLACE. OTHERWISE, IT IS JUST A HUMAN WORD LIKE ANY OTHER. ... What stands there, in the pages of the Bible, is the witness to the Word of God ... God can be called truth only when 'truth' is understood in the sense of the Greek word 'aletheia'" (Barth, Romans)."If you ask about God and if I am really to tell about him, dialectic is all that can be expected fr

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

[Kevin Deegan]

Do you want to borrow a megaphone to SCREAM thru?  Judaizing punk!  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:My comments and questions remain. I was very concernedabout the young manat one time and worked to meet with him. Right now, he needs to know that is not received as a Christian,that his divisiveness and filthy languagehave placed him outside the fellowship. He isa very harmful influence, or at least he is trying to be and you know this full well. I worked to help him -- while you were in the back of your house, no doubt, folding underwear. We are done.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 16:39:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)I just posted your words.  It is then 'your' assessment that your words "besmurch" your "efforts"  Do you have a Ministry to "Judaizing punks"? There is nothing in the comments "Barthian" unless you refer to your weak SmokeScreen attempt to
 distract.knpraise@aol.com wrote: 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 young man, face to face (he lives near Fresno) while, you on the other hand, have decided to pull the comment out of context and misapply the larger effort. You have done nothing to save this boy and now, you intentionally besmurch by comments and efforts for what purpose? TO WIN AN ARGUMENT ABOUT BARTH.     -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 14:44:20 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth) I am speaking as a pastor. I do agree that such conduct isharmful and wrong spirited. Ido notbelieve that Jezebel isa word that should be used with you in mind, for any reason. Now, withthat statement of fact in mind -- go back and see 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 confrontation." knpraise@aol.com wrote:see my comments below. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: 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 14:54:27 -0500 knpraise@aol.com writes: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 speaks these words as would a well trained parrot. OK JD; I publicly apologize for using a derogatory term to describe one of your religious mentors. However, you are far from clean yourself in this area. Is calling me a "well trained parrot" kind?As Perry has pointed out, I am here on TT.  Barth is not. I don't care where Barth is not. I accept your
 apology. I assume it is genuine. I did not call you a "well trained parrot," did I? It was a reference to the fact that these words were actually Kevin's. Having said that, do you not get the point of my post? Has it completely missed you? Of course giving comparison to YOUR WORDS ( .. speaks these words as would a well trained parrot ... ") is inflaminary. I will apologrize for making that comparison. Read on, Judy. She has so committed herself to the disgracing of Barth as to render her comments bigoted and biased -- words and judgments written without personal knowing. I regard these wordsas both ignorant and stupid -- and the gloryof it all is that I get to say such things without crossing the line of "ad hom"because I have limited my attack to her words and not to her person. Asinine. Such a line solves no problems and allows the kind of negative immaturity that typifies TT discussions . The above is an "ignorant" statement. The whole "inerrancy movement" was to counteract the
 unbelief of the likes of Karl Barth and the damage his teachings and writings had done and were doing to the evangelical churches. Why are you so quick to offend the living in taking up an offense for the dead. It makes no sense at all. The "inerrancy movement" is a figment of your mind. It pre-dates Barth by many years. I do not know who gets

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

[Kevin Deegan]

AND?If he cleans up his mouth and stops being "DIVISIVE" that alone will place him firmly within the Christian camp?No need for a Conversion?  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:My comments and questions remain. I was very concernedabout the young manat one time and worked to meet with him. Right now, he needs to know that is not received as a Christian,that his divisiveness and filthy languagehave placed him outside the fellowship. He isa very harmful influence, or at least he is trying to be and you know
 this full well. I worked to help him -- while you were in the back of your house, no doubt, folding underwear. We are done.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 16:39:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)I just posted your words.  It is then 'your' assessment that your words "besmurch" your "efforts"  Do you have a Ministry to "Judaizing punks"? There is nothing in the comments "Barthian" unless you refer to your weak SmokeScreen attempt to distract.knpraise@aol.com wrote: 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 young man, face to face (he lives near Fresno) while, you on the other hand, have decided to pull the comment out of context and misapply the larger
 effort. You have done nothing to save this boy and now, you intentionally besmurch by comments and efforts for what purpose? TO WIN AN ARGUMENT ABOUT BARTH. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 14:44:20 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth) I am speaking as a pastor. I do agree that such conduct isharmful and wrong spirited. Ido notbelieve that Jezebel isa word that should be used with you in mind, for any reason. Now, withthat statement of fact in mind -- go back and see 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 confrontation." knpraise@aol.com wrote:see my comments below. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: 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 14:54:27 -0500 knpraise@aol.com writes: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 speaks these words as would a well trained parrot. OK JD; I publicly apologize for using a derogatory term to describe one of your religious mentors. However, you are far from clean yourself in this area. Is calling me a "well trained parrot" kind?As Perry has pointed out, I am here on TT.  Barth is not. I don't care where Barth is not. I accept your
 apology. I assume it is genuine. I did not call you a "well trained parrot," did I? It was a reference to the fact that these words were actually Kevin's. Having said that, do you not get the point of my post? Has it completely missed you? Of course giving comparison to YOUR WORDS ( .. speaks these words as would a well trained parrot ... ") is inflaminary. I will apologrize for making that comparison. Read on, Judy. She has so committed herself to the disgracing of Barth as to render her comments bigoted and biased -- words and judgments written without personal knowing. I regard these wordsas both ignorant and stupid -- and the gloryof it all is that I get to say such things without crossing the line of "ad hom"because I have limited my attack to her words and not to her person. Asinine. Such a line solves no problems and allows the kind of negative immaturity that typifies TT discussions . The above is an "ignorant" statement. The whole "inerrancy movement" was to counteract the
 unbelief of the likes of Karl Barth and the damage his teachings and writings had done and were doing to the evangelical churches. Why are you so quick to offend the living in taking up an offense for the dead. It makes no sense at all. The "inerran

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

[Kevin Deegan]

That was my point here is the guy who preaches against the tough guy image to Dean.Besides where  how does the "PASTOR" image fit into this?Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Where's the love JD  Barth is not doing much for you in this area - that's for sure or maybe you like the "tough man" image...    From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am speaking as a pastor. I do agree that such conduct isharmful and wrong spirited. Ido notbelieve that Jezebel isa word that should be used with you in mind, for any reason. Now, withthat statement of fact in mind -- go back and see 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 confrontation." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:see my comments below. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:54:27 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: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 speaks these words as would a well trained parrot. OK JD; I publicly apologize for using a derogatory term to describe one of your religious mentors. However, you are far from clean yourself in this area. Is calling me a "well trained parrot" kind?As Perry has pointed out, I am here on TT.  Barth is not. I don't care where Barth is not. I accept your apology. I assume it is genuine. I did not call you a "well trained parrot," did I? It was a reference to the fact that these words were actually Kevin's. Having said that, do you not get the point of my
 post? Has it completely missed you? Of course giving comparison to YOUR WORDS ( .. speaks these words as would a well trained parrot ... ") is inflaminary. I will apologrize for making that comparison. Read on, Judy. She has so committed herself to the disgracing of Barth as to render her comments bigoted and biased -- words and judgments written without personal knowing. I regard these wordsas both ignorant and stupid -- and the gloryof it all is that I get to say such things without crossing the line of "ad hom"because I have limited my attack to her words and not to her person. Asinine. Such a line solves no problems and allows the kind of
 negative immaturity that typifies TT discussions . The above is an "ignorant" statement. The whole "inerrancy movement" was to counteract the unbelief of the likes of Karl Barth and the damage his teachings and writings had done and were doing to the evangelical churches. Why are you so quick to offend the living in taking up an offense for the dead. It makes no sense at all. The "inerrancy movement" is a figment of your mind. It pre-dates Barth by many years. I do not know who gets credit for coming up with the words "verbal / plenary" -- but I am confident that these were not created to fight Barth. More than this, you can give me no example of Barth's harmful effects. Show me from his words
  put up or, well, shut up!!!"Barf" is vomit, Perry. It no more is beyond "ad hom" than calling Judy Jezebel. She is not a whore and Barth is not a pile of vomit. If you disagree, then I will argue that Jezebel decribes the whoring words of one who has prostituted the truth for a lie.and it will become a part of my presentations here on TT. I will use it to describe Judy in the same sense that The Revelations uses the word. What do you think? jdI'm not Perry but I would think as a grown adult who claims to be a believingpastor that you should know better JDwould someone explain to this lovely woman just what I was doing with the above. I am speaking as a pastor. I do agree that such conduct isharmful and wrong spirited. Ido notbelieve that Jezebel isa word that should be used with you in mind, for any reason. Now, withthat statement of fact in mind -- go back and see if youcan figure outwhat I am trying to accomplish in the above?jdFrom: Charles Perry Locke cpl2602@hotmail.com  John, there are many dimensions to the ad-hominem argument on which Webster's does not elaborate. In fact, the way the ad hominem attack is most often used on TT is to demean the opponent for 1) hoping to discredit them to the point that their arguments seem untrustworthy, 2) to throw a red herring into the argument to avoid answering the opponent's argument, and 3) is almost alays a sign of defeat in the argumentand "Jezebel" is one such ad-hominem.While "Barf" for &quo

Re: [TruthTalk] Virtue of Name Calling

[Kevin Deegan]

  Name Calling is said to be unfair in debate. It is similar to an "Ad hominim" attack, or an attack on the person instead of the argument. I agree that the truth stands on its own, and that truths can be spoken by people of questionable character, and that character attacks might not have anything to do with the validity of the arguments being presented. Nevertheless, Jesus and the prophets personally attacked the character of their enemies by calling them plenty of names such as hypocrites, liars, murderers and worse. The point should be that unfair name calling should be avoided, but truthful name calling is certainly appropriate. Accurate and truthful descriptions of another's bad character are the type of rebuke we are asked to make when contending for the faith. 1 Timothy 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
 Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  This is an interesting article - What say ye CPL??On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 15:41:19 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:  The Virtue of Name-Calling  John W. Robbins  American Christians of the
 twentieth century are, for the most part, a pusillanimous bunch. About the only time they shed their timidity is in order to attack a fellow Christian who is valiant in defense of the truth. A Christian like that is perceived as a threat to the "unity of believers" and the "peace of the church." Confronted with such a manifest threat to unity and peace, some professed Christians can be quite vindictive and vicious, as J. Gresham Machen learned earlier in this century and as Harold Lindsell is learning now.  Some time ago a reader wrote to the editors of Present Truth (now Verdict) magazine to protest the magazine’s attitude toward Karl Barth. In his letter, the reader referred to Barth as a "monstrous miscreant," thereby violating the first commandment of polite society: Never call people names (unless, of course, those people are ignorant fundamentalists). The editor, in a stern and curt rebuke, reprimanded the reader, saying,
 "We suggest, sir, that you stick to judging Barth’s theology and not his person." That is, never call people names. Name-calling is not only non-Christian, it is worse: It is prima facie evidence of bad taste, and whatever Christians do, they must never, no never, give the impression that they are of low birth.  Two of the most shocking things for a twentieth-century American Christian to read are the works of Martin Luther and John Calvin, for these men—who were valiant for the truth—did not hesitate to call people names. Are Luther and Calvin wrong and the editors of Present Truth right? The only way for a Christian to discover the answer is to examine the Scriptures.  Unfortunately, most professed Christians today seem never to have gotten past Matthew 7. That’s too bad, for they should proceed to read Matthew 23. In that chapter alone, Christ calls the scribes and
 Pharisees names 16 times. The names are "hypocrites" (7 times), "son of Hell" (once),"blind guides" (twice), "fools and blind" (3 times), "whited sepulchres" (once), "serpents" (once), and "offspring of vipers" (once). Since Christ was without sin, we may deduce by good and necessary consequence that name-calling as such is not a sin. Since everything Christ did was righteous and virtuous, we may deduce by good and necessary consequence that accurate name-calling is a virtue.  But Christ is not the only example. John, who some professed Christians love to quote because they misunderstand and misrepresent what he says about love, calls certain persons known to his readers "liars" and "antichrists." Those sensitive souls who flinch when they read chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession identifying the pope as antichrist should read 1 John 2 and 2 John. John was not talking about
 someone far off in Rome; he was referring to persons known to his readers.  Just AD HOMS?  Then there is Paul, who in 1 Corinthians corrected those at Corinth who denied the resurrection. In chapter 15, verse 36, he refers to one objector as a fool. And can we not conclude from Psalms 14:1 and 53:1 that Madalyn O’Hair, for example, is a fool? Further, in 1 Timothy 4:2 Paul refers to "hypocritical liars" and in 5:13 he writes of "gossips and busybodies." Those who object to name-calling must object to the practice of Jesus, Paul, and John, among many others.  The obvious question, which the perceptive reader has already asked, is, what shall we do with Matthew 5:22:"Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be liable to the Sanhedrin; but whoever shall say, Fool, shall be liable to the fire
 of Hell." Does not this verse, just as Matthew 7:1does with judging and Matthew 5:3

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)

[Kevin Deegan]

I think it is similar to a Bishop image.Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  What in the flab is a pastor image?==Kevin Deegan wrote: That was my point here is the guy who preaches against the tough guy image to Dean.Besides where  how does the "PASTOR" image fit into this?Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Where's the love JD  Barth is not doing much for you in this area - that's for sure or maybe you like the "tough man" image...    From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am speaking as a pastor. I do agree that such conduct isharmful and wrong spirited. Ido notbelieve that Jezebel isa word that should be used with you in mind, for any reason. Now, withthat statement of fact in mind -- go back and see 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 confrontation." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:see my comments below. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:54:27 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: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 speaks these words as would a well trained parrot. OK JD; I publicly apologize for using a derogatory term to describe one of your religious mentors. However, you are far
 from clean yourself in this area. Is calling me a "well trained parrot" kind?As Perry has pointed out, I am here on TT.  Barth is not. I don't care where Barth is not. I accept your apology. I assume it is genuine. I did not call you a "well trained parrot," did I? It was a reference to the fact that these words were actually Kevin's. Having said that, do you not get the point of my post? Has it completely missed you? Of course giving comparison to YOUR WORDS ( .. speaks these words as would a well trained parrot ... ") is inflaminary. I will apologrize for making that comparison. Read on, Judy. She has so committed herself
 to the disgracing of Barth as to render her comments bigoted and biased -- words and judgments written without personal knowing. I regard these wordsas both ignorant and stupid -- and the gloryof it all is that I get to say such things without crossing the line of "ad hom"because I have limited my attack to her words and not to her person. Asinine. Such a line solves no problems and allows the kind of negative immaturity that typifies TT discussions . The above is an "ignorant" statement. The whole "inerrancy movement" was to counteract the unbelief of the likes of Karl Barth and the damage his teachings and writings had done and were doing to the evangelical churches. Why are you so
 quick to offend the living in taking up an offense for the dead. It makes no sense at all. The "inerrancy movement" is a figment of your mind. It pre-dates Barth by many years. I do not know who gets credit for coming up with the words "verbal / plenary" -- but I am confident that these were not created to fight Barth. More than this, you can give me no example of Barth's harmful effects. Show me from his words  put up or, well, shut up!!!"Barf" is vomit, Perry. It no more is beyond "ad hom" than calling Judy Jezebel. She is not a whore and Barth is not a pile of vomit. If you disagree, then
 I will argue that Jezebel decribes the whoring words of one who has prostituted the truth for a lie.and it will become a part of my presentations here on TT. I will use it to describe Judy in the same sense that The Revelations uses the word. What do you think? jdI'm not Perry but I would think as a grown adult who claims to be a believingpastor that you should know better JDwould someone explain to this lovely woman just what I was doing with the above. I am speaking as a pastor. I do agree that such conduct isharmful and wrong
 spirited. Ido notbelieve that Jezebel isa word that should be used with you in mind, for any reason. Now, withthat statement of fact in mind -- go back and see if youcan figure outwhat I am trying to accomplish in the above?jdFrom: Charles Perry Locke cpl2602@hotmail.com  John, there are many dimensions to the ad-hominem argument on which Webster's does not elaborate. In fact, the way the ad hominem attack is most often used on TT is to demean the opponent for 1) hoping to discredit them to the point that their arguments seem untrustworthy, 2) to throw a red herring into the argum

Re: [TruthTalk] Mission from God

[Kevin Deegan]

  Statue-Whacker on 'Mission from God' Will Be Tried  By Raquel Maria Dillon, October 4, 2005 04:18 PM   OAKLAND -- The man who used an ax to whack at a statue of Jesus in the Oakland Mormon Temple Visitors Center rejected a plea bargain in Alameda County Superior Court yesterday.  Larry B. Sargeant, 74, is charged with vandalizing religious property and has a history of attacking Mormon statuary. He rejected a plea offer that would have let him off with probation and free him from jail.Sargeant insisted on going to trial and pleaded not guilty to the felony charge because he believes he was on a mission from God, his attorney said. Hes willing to risk three years in state prison because he thought he was doing Gods work.On the evening of December 9th of last year, Sargeant entered
 the Temple Visitors Center and hit the statue with an ax until he broke off two fingers and a thumb. Onlookers wrestled him to the ground before he could do further damage to the sculpture.  At the foot of the statue he left a note which quoted a bible verse--Exodus 20:4, which prohibits Christians from making graven images--and ended with Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, a police report said.  Sargeants lawyer, public defender Sam Yun, told Judge Allan D. Hymer that his client believes he is a prophet sent by God to save the Church of Latter Day Saints from perverting Gods teachings. (By REVELATION?)By Sargeants logic, God deeded the Mormon Church to him and therefore the Oakland Temple and its statues are his property, Yun said.Sargeant looks like a prophet from the Old Testament or the Book of Mormon. He has a head of wavy white hair, a Santa Claus beard, and imperious bushy
 eyebrows.In a previous hearing, court-appointed psychiatrists found Sargeant mentally unfit to stand trial. Sargeant and the District Attorneys office appealed that finding and a second judge found him competent to face the charges before a jury. If you dont touch on this subject, hes very intelligent and gentle, Yun said. He has no violent tendencies. Its just sad to see how the system treats people with mental illness.  Vandalizing religious property carries a penalty of up to three years in state prison.  Jay Pimentel, a spokesman for the Oakland Mormon Temple, said the temple leadership is not trying to make a big deal about the incident, but they are concerned about public safety. ( The public should be concerned about another wayward mormon?)  He was wielding a long-handled ax and there were lots of people around as he was swinging the thing, said Pimentel. He was not
 showing proper regard for peoples safety or for a statue of Christ who we worship.  (what regard should one show to a statue?)We think its serious case, said Kevin Wong, deputy District Attorney. The visitors center is a place of prayer, worship, and education.  The damaged statue of Jesus serves as the centerpiece of the Visitors Center display and is visible from the parking lot. The eight-foot figure is a replica of a famous sculpture located in the main LDS Visitors Center in Salt Lake City. The temple spent $1200 to repair the damage to Jesus hand.  ( Is this some CRAZED SP? No it was a Mormon! And a "PROPHET" at that! )Sargeant is from the small eastern Washington town of Colville and grew up Mormon. Twenty years ago, he served three years in state prison for defacing a Mormon temple in Los
 Angeles County. In 2001, he was arrested in Salt Lake City for attacking a statue in Temple Square, but the Church of Latter Day Saints did not press charges.  
		 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] **Moderaor Comment**: Terry, let me put it in perspective for you.

[Kevin Deegan]

I will discuss this issue with you, onceI investigate the best way to proceedCharles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Kevin, these discussions between Dean and John regarding violence are an offshoot of the Izzy/Dave thread, so if you wish to continue it please do so privately.Thanks,Perry the ModeratorFrom: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Terry, let me put it in perspective for you.Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:20:29 -0800 (PST)Ya know I am getting sick of your bragging about your Inteligence[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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. .AOLPlainTextBody { margin: 0px; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px; color: #000; background-color: #fff; } .AOLPlainTextBody pre { font-size: 9pt;  } .AOLInlineAttachment { margin: 10px; } .AOLAttachmentHeader { border-bottom: 2px solid #E9EAEB; background: #F9F9F9; } .AOLAttachmentHeader .Title { font: 11px Tahoma; font-weight: bold; color: #66; background: #E9EAEB; padding: 3px 0px 1px 10px; } .AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldLabel { font: 11px Tahoma;  font-weight: bold; color: #66; padding: 1px 10px 1px 9px; }
 .AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldValue { font: 11px Tahoma; color: #33; } cd: Terry such things should never be among our conversations as a part of the body-I will not accept such-nor allow someone to speak such to my wife. I am from the south here we have chivalry-such thing are not done-nor will we allow a women to be mistreated in our presence.If being this way is an excuse for my enemies to attack my character by portraying me as violent-then I count it as gain. DavH knew it was wrong to take the conversation deeper in the area of sex while speaking to someones wife but the lust of the flesh led him on-that is the truth of the matter-It would be great gain for his master to cause a Christian to dwell in such areas -that is what happened -same as he tried last year. He asks what would Jesus do? Well how would Jesus have responded to DavH's question?Would Jesus have asked such a
 question in the first place? Yes crap stinks when stirred but now my character is being questioned and I view you as one the one's questioning my character. I have even challenged to a grappling match-and now I am su ppose to bring my wife-I do not take my wife around people who allow women to be spoken to in such a manner as they may do the same to her-seems that no decent women should be around people like you or John.That means I wouldn't take my wife around you either-in my book wrong manners isn't good manners. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/27/2005 12:08:21 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Terry, let me put it in perspective for you.I promise, Dean, I will never knowingly justify the wicked. I also apologize for being harsh with you in the message below. I do ask
 that you reconsider your statement that I am defending Dave. He is well able to defend himself. I was simply voicing my opinion, telling you that I think both you and Perry are going ballistic over something that would have better been ignored.== cd: Well Terry if I were in the wrong I might just take your advice-But one shouldn't justify the wicked as both are guilty before God.Daves mind was in the gutters-similar to last time when he asked Izzy about her underclothing she has just finished shopping for-Do you think I make decisions on just one incident? This is the second and I also stopped the first last year. But you just keep on defending him-no matter what filth comes from his mouth and at the same time those who say it is wrong just continue attacking their character-I will forgive you but I will also bound
 this over for a higher court-your choice? - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/27/2005 10:58:55 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Terry, let me put it in perspective for you.Consider this! You constantly stirrinf the pot and pretending to know how I think may be the biggest problem of all. I suggest you put your brain in gear before opening your mouth.Terrycd: It is not your point that is the problem-the problem is that Terry don't want to get you point-Dave is a gentleman in Terry's eyes and no matter what DavH does it is seen as how a gentleman is suppose to act-even of asking married women about their sex life-or hinting that others know izzy intimily.Remember DavH is Terrys brother and one stands by his brother-right or wrong.It is a
 shame that Terry over looks Izzy as a sister  that should be helped when the shark attacks by throwi

Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.

[Kevin Deegan]

What a Public INTRODUCTION to His MINISTRY!Who said anything about Hate?  Is that how you feel JD?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 about that. What of the fact that we have noother examples of violence on the part of Christians in the NT scriptures? Whatof Stephen as he was being stoned?What of Stephens prayer?  What ofChrist's statement about living by the sword? Or of hate toward the others? at the temple -- you don't know whatwent on in that circumstance except that he took a whip and drove the money changers away. Did He whip the money changer or their animals? DidHe hit anyone? Why didn't someone hit him, Perry? Maybe the whip was forTHAT reason - self protection as he turned over the tables? That would square much more readily with His speech and example than any other opinion. But go ahead and make more of the Temple than you can possibly know
 and then make a rule of conduct out of this single incident. "I believe He did it once in His life which gives me the right to violence when I see fit.' Some of these weirdos even believe it is God's call to kill in the name of the Lord (ala Paul Hill.) Jesus Christ was not a violent man AND ANYONE WHO BELIEVES OTHERWISE IS MORE CONFUSED than any claim against the Mormons. You want to develop a theology of confrontation that includessuch ignorant activity as the underwear thing, will, no one can stop you. You want to get violent with those on this list -- actually that can be stopped. JD -Original
 Message-From: Charles Perry Locke cpl2602@hotmail.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:14:42 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.  Was Jesus being holy when he made a whip and kicked the money lenders from the temple? Was he being holy when he spoke to the pharisees and accused them of having Satan as their father? Dean has a pretty high-level example, wouldn't you say?From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 21:09:59 -0500Holiness 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 openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 14:07:23 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.Knowing Dean personally, he is not one to feign anything.He is deeply concerned with holiness and I believe I can testify that he lives it too.I would not assume anything as far as the mat either.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 shut up -- probably not possible.You are welcome to come to the house. In spite of the rhetoric, I think it would actually wind up being a good experience. Bring your wife and suitable attire for the gym. We can make the arrangements off line.But stop with the feigned distress over the DH-Izzy situation. You are accomplishing absolutely no good whatsoever.jd-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 10:08:49 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect. ;- Original Message -From:To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 11/26/2005 9:35:52 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.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? DUH-Tell us of your sexual experiences Izzy-Duh And why are you taking offense
 at something for which Linda is not? Simple you don't talk to women like that around me-and then there are the sinful overtone. Finally, you have offered advice to a women (Linda) who has asked us all to move on. Did you miss that point? So, why don't you take her advice and butt out.Did she advice me to butt out- or are you lying again? Why don't you make me butt out mouth.Jd-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:05:36 -0500Subject: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect. cd:My advice is
 for Izzy to show this to here husband-and let him resolve this matter. Then the snake in the grass will learn respect for a decent women and not to try and 

Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy

[Kevin Deegan]

Good point   Another similarity btween Cain  DH  One was and one is Present tense indicitave of BEING LOST!Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Cain wasn't an Israelite either; he was just a man with a propensity toward sin and no heart for GodOn Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:46:33 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:DaveH ain't Cain, Bro--neither is he an IsraeliteOn Sat, 26 Nov 2005 19:31:17 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.  Gen 35 Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments  || 
 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
 Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)  
		 Yahoo! Personals 
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet. 
Lot's of someone's, actually. Try Yahoo! Personals

Re: [TruthTalk] Theology of violence?

[Kevin Deegan]

ve He did it once in His life which gives me the right to violence when I see fit.' Some of these weirdos even believe it is God's call to kill in the name of the Lord (ala Paul Hill.)  Jesus Christ was not a violent man AND ANYONE WHO BELIEVES OTHERWISE IS  MORE CONFUSED than any claim against the Mormons. nb sp; You want to develop a theology of confrontation that includes such ignorant activity as the underwear thing, will, no one can stop you. You want to get violent with those on this list -- actually that can be stopped.  JD  -Original Message- From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:14:42 -0800 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.   Was Jesus being holy when he made a whip and kicked the money lenders from the temple? Was he being holy when he spoke to the pharisees and accused them of having Satan as thei r father? Dean has a pretty high-level example, wouldn't you say?   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ol.com  Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.  Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 21:09:59 -0500Holiness 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 openairmission@yahoo.com  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 14:07:23 -0800 (PST)  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.  Knowing Dean personally, he is not one to feign anything.  He is deeply concerned with holiness and I believe I can testify that he  lives it too.  I would not assume anything as far as the mat either.[EMAIL PROTECTED]ol.com wrote:Like I said -- and it is becoming even more obvious: this is not about   anything but Dean making it clear that he is the to ughest 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 shut up -- probably not
 possible.You are welcome to come to the house. In spite of the rhetoric, I think   it would actually wind up being a good experience. Bring your wife and   suitable attire for the gym. We can make the arrangements off line.But stop with the feigned distress over the DH-Izzy situation. You are   accomplishing absolutely no good whatsoever.jd-Original Message-  From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.net  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 10:08:49 -0500  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.- Original Message -  From:  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/26/2005 9:35:52 AM  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.  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? DUH-Tell us of your sexual experiences   Izzy-Duh And why are you taking offense at something for which Linda is   not? Simple you don't talk to women like that around me-and then there  are the sinful overtone. Finally, you have offered advice to a women  (Linda) who has asked us all to move on. Did you miss that point? So, why don't you take her advice and butt out.Did she advice me to butt out- or are you lying again? Why don't you make me butt out mouth.Jd-Original Message- BR
  From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.net  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:05:36 -0500  Subject: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.   cd:My advice is for Izzy to show this to here husband-and let him   resolve this matter. Then the snake in the grass will learn respect for a   decent women and not to try and speak to her as one would a whore. He is  not sorry for anything-as he has no morality.Don't even know right from  wrong and apparently neither does a few others on this list-no 
 discernment even to seeing no   problem with asking a women such questions-even another mans wife-evil   wicked hearted people claiming to be children of God that cannot even   receive the milk of the word-and yet defend their ignorance with more   ignorance.  [Original Message]  From: Charles Perry Locke   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Date:   11/25/2005 11:06:37 AM  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual   Experiences-Charles?John, Izzy opened the door, and has realized   that and apologized for it  (maybe you missed that post). It was DH that  
 walked through that door and  took it to the gutter.   Perry  ; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ol.com  Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  To:   TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual   Experiences-Charles?  Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:50:46 -0500   Hey tough guy, it was Linda Shields who open 

Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.

[Kevin Deegan]

So here is the Real Problem when are you going to stop beating your wife type of problem.The problem has now become that VIOLENT man!  LOLDave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  DAVEH: I trust that Dean is a Christian first, and his propensity towards violence is tempered by his understanding of what Jesus would want him to do. (BTW G, I've got a black belt too..helps keep my pants up!)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   ..and what about inciting the Wesleyan/s to violence, DaveH(?)--did you know that Dean is theologically degreed in
 that area--maybe even a black belt??:)On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:28:03 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:  though T may not see it this way, apparentlyDaveH has some explainin' to do--eh? On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:08:35 -0800 "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wake up folks...when Dave said, "Do you suppose CPL will know  anything aboutthem, Dean", the implication was that Izzy and I were intimate. How  elsewould I know about her sexual experiences...  ||  --   
 ~~~   Dave Hansen   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.langlitz.com   ~~~   If you wish to receive   things I find interesting,   I maintain six email lists...   JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,   STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.  __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [TruthTalk] Terry, let me put it in perspective for you.

[Kevin Deegan]

Ya know I am getting sick of your bragging about your Inteligence[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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.cd: Terry such things should never be among our conversations as a part of the body-I will not accept such-nor allow someone to speak such to my wife. I am from the south here we have chivalry-such thing are not done-nor will we allow a women to be mistreated in our presence.If being this way is an excuse for my enemies to attack my character by portraying me as violent-then I count it as gain. DavH knew it was wrong to take the conversation deeper in the area of sex while speaking to someones
 wife but the lust of the flesh led him on-that is the truth of the matter-It would be great gain for his master to cause a Christian to dwell in such areas -that is what happened -same as he tried last year. He asks what would Jesus do? Well how would Jesus have responded to DavH's question?Would Jesus have asked such a question in the first place?Yes crap stinks when stirred but now my character is being questioned and I view you as one the one's questioning my character. I have even challenged to a grappling match-and now I am su ppose to bring my wife-I do not take my wife around people who allow women to be spoken to in such a manner as they may do the same to her-seems that no decent women should be around people like you or John.That means I wouldn't take my wife around you either-in my book wrong manners isn't good manners.  - Original Message -   From: Terry Clifton   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/27/2005 12:08:21 PM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Terry, let me put it in perspective for you.  I promise, Dean, I will never knowingly justify the wicked. I also apologize for being harsh with you in the message below. I do ask that you reconsider your statement that I am defending Dave. He is well able to defend himself. I was simply voicing my opinion, telling
 you that I think both you and Perry are going ballistic over something that would have better been ignored.==cd: Well Terry if I were in the wrong I might just take your advice-But one shouldn't justify the wicked as both are guilty before God.Daves mind was in the gutters-similar to last time when he asked Izzy about her underclothing she has just finished shopping for-Do you think I make decisions on just one incident? This is the second and I also stopped the first last year. But you just keep on defending him-no matter what filth comes from his mouth and at the same time those who say it is wrong just continue attacking their character-I will forgive you but I will also bound this over for a higher court-your choice?- Original Message -   From: Terry Clifton   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/27/2005 10:58:55 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Terry, let me put it in
 perspective for you.Consider this! You constantly stirrinf the pot and pretending to know how I think may be the biggest problem of all. I suggest you put your brain in gear before opening your mouth.  Terry  cd: It is not your point that is the problem-the problem is that Terry  don't want to get you point-Dave is a gentleman in Terry's eyes and no  matter what DavH does it is seen as how a gentleman is suppose to act-even  of asking married women about their sex life-or hinting that others know  izzy intimily.Remember DavH is Terrys brother and one stands by his  brother-right or wrong.It is a shame that Terry over looks Izzy as a sister 
 that should be helped when the shark attacks by throwing filth her way:-(--  "
		 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore

[Kevin Deegan]

Not my spelling just my typing skills  my 2 typing fingers trip over one another  especially when I hit speeds of upwards of 10 words per minute!  It is a good thing I do not get paid for my typing skills at work.(hit the key to the left of d)sepends one of the most difficult to type words on the keyboard. two keys letters in close proximity! fingers get tripped up. strucre   INTREAT versus Entreat? not a spelling problem. Some would say this is easy.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Ignorant, stupid : akin to "idiot."   Kevin -- take a look at your misspellings : It sepends on how one looks at itHow about the sentence strucre and the meaningIndifference is active oposition in His book!  Like I said -- it is easy.   -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:27:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean MoorePaul is not saying that ignorant or stupid people have been intrusted with the gospel of Christ.He could not be!  ENtrusted: Put into the care or protection of someone[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 tohear -- over and over again - that Bill's conversation is so muchabove the rest of us. Lets be sure to ignore the fact that "God using the unwise to confound the wise" HAS Nothing TO DO WITH EDUCATIONAL Accomplishment's. The statement was written by a highly educated person -- but one who believed in Christ and FOR THAT REASONALONE was considered "unwise"
 and "foolish." Paul is not saying that ignorant or stupid people have been intrusted with the gospel of Christ.But go ahead and disagree with that.You prove nothing by so doing. jd  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:24:26 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean MooreYou are Bill and not Lance who made the "accusation" to begin with but apparently you two are open to the same kinds of thoughts.ATSTthe two of youare either unaware or ignorant as to just how patronizing and arrogant most of what  you write to the list is for others. Most everything Lance writes is an opinion that includes a non flattering judgment toward somebody's person rather than a contribution toward the subject at hand.And you Bill are so far off into academia that you are speaking in another tongue  most of the time so far as I am concerned anyway.
 The red letters below are definitely NOT "invective filled" I wrote them in good faith without the intent to injure or wound and I do not consider myself the enemy of either of you. It would be a good thing if both of you learned just who your enemy is in reality because this is just one more of his firey darts.Great peace have they that love Thy Law and nothing offends them (causes them to stumble)   Psalm
 119:165   On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:09:12 -0700 "Taylor" wmtaylor@plains.net writes:  What "invective" filled language Lance?  Examples pleaseOh the ignorance of those who don't see things the way you do again Lance along with the fact that you are unable or unwilling
 to produce an example of invective filled language coming from me.   Let's see "INVECTIVE"Okay, more below:Hmmm - Just as I thought, the Holy Spirit has been fired and men have taken over; men who exalt Greek present passive verbs..  OK Kevin God has spoken ... so now forever hold your peace.[I]t's not easy to
 try and sort out what Bill is sayinghere with Plato sitting in the RH cornerAmazing how the devil jumps in and shuts it down just when it starts getting good isn't it??Thank you for being a friend,Bill- Original Message -   From: Judy Taylor   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 10:11 AM  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean MooreOh the ignorance of those who don't see things the way you do again Lance along with the fact that you are unable or  unwilling to produce an example of invective filled language coming from me. Let's see "INVECTIVE"Noah Webster 1828 - Invective Noun  A railing speech or _expression_; something uttered or written intended to cast opprobrium,
 censure or reproach on another; a harsh or reproachful accusation. It differs from reproof as the latter may come from a friend and 

Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy

[Kevin Deegan]

 What difference does it make why the LDS folks in SLC are offended by the likes of you waving their underwear around like fools. The point is that you are offending them (not me) by doing such. As Perry suggesteddon't you think you owe them an apology?  May I quote you?  DAVEH: ??? Huh? Just exactly what do you think I said that would justify that reaction? Please quote my specific comments so that we can see what you are talking about. If you don't have any specific quotes, then we can assume you are making this up!  The best you can do is draw some imaginary picture in your mind of "waving their underwear around like fools"   Fools wear them as a RELIGIOUS _expression_!  They are the equivilent of the Pagan ROMAN CATHOLIC Scapular.  They Trust their scapular LDS trust undies.  No wonder
 they are offended I would not want anyone to know about such foolishness. Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  if you won't list the imaginary offense about SP's then stop whining about it.DAVEH: Your retorts are so predictable, they are simply laughable Kevin! :-D  What difference does it make why the LDS folks in SLC are offended by the likes of you waving their underwear around like fools. The point is that you are offending them (not me) by doing such. As Perry suggesteddon't you think you owe them an apology?If you said such about someones wife, they would be justified in punching your lites out.DAVEH:
 ??? Huh? Just exactly what do you think I said that would justify that reaction? Please quote my specific comments so that we can see what you are talking about. If you don't have any specific quotes, then we can assume you are making this up!Kevin Deegan wrote: if you won't list the imaginary offense about SP's then stop whining about it.If you said such about someones wife, they would be justified in punching your lites out. The State of Utah would see it this way too.  On the other hand LDS who assault SP's because they are offended go to jail. That is after they find the smallest SP to attack from behind. Or better yet slam an elbow into the back of a Women holding a scripture sign. Must
 have been OFFENDED by the BIBLE. By the way it was a good thing here husband did not see that one. That is OK because God will judge. I bet He is even more upsetknowing that the Woman that LDS THUG hit from behind has cancer!  Spare me your whining if you can not discuss the problem seek couseling.Get over it your Religon is VILE  I will not Respect it.  Aint gonna happen  There is NOTHING Sacred in Mormonism.  It is a good thing we are not in the OT cause they were told to TEAR DOWN the groves!  In America there is Freedom of speech, you do not have the freedom to avoid offense.   If you
 are OFFENDED by SP's take the recommendation of the Supreme court Plug your ears and avert your eyes!Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Maybe DH was angry.DAVEH: LOL.Even you should know me better than that, Kevin. I simply don't get angry. (Or at least I haven't yetI wonder what I would really say/do if that situation ever to happen)he WILL not list just what exactly is so OBNOXIOUS about itDAVEH: Why should I list such? I am not the one offended by it, Kevin. Obviously, there are a lot of LDS folks in SLC who are offended though. I tend not to take offense at such silly stuff, but apparently
 others do. They are the ones you should be apologizing to, according to Perrythe principle I was taught is that when you offend someone you apologize...even if you didn't mean to, even if you were joking, even if you think they are faking offense, apologizing is the right thing to do. Izzy got it. Kevin got it..So Kevindid you g et Perry's message??? If so, will you be apologizing to the folks you offend in SLC? Nowassuming you did not get the message (and will not apologize to those you have offended), would you be surprised if I continue offending the hypocrites of TT?It seems DH is saying it is OK to talk about his bedroom if it is done in jest.DAVEH: Isn't that what some TTers were doing when asking me about when and how I wear my underwear? I just replied in kind. Or, did you really think they were serious? 
 C'mmon now, Kevin.you are a smart guy, aren't you!  Now the big question, Kevin.had I seriously responded to those very personal questions as though they were not asked in jest, would you have been able to avoid mocking, demeaning and denigrating my answers?Kevin Deegan wrote:   Why? Jjust because it is really the Street Preachers fault?  Maybe DH was angry. Of course he equates SP in front of the Temple as Obnoxius etc blah blah blah. But he WILL not list just what exactly is so OBNOXIOUS about it. anyway SP 's at the Temple have nothing to do with his off color Humor [sic]It is all about offense not right  wrong. it is
 only wrong if you can find someone to be offended by it. Right?It seems DH is saying it is OK to talk about his bedroom if it is done in jest.Charles P

Re: [TruthTalk] Fithy LDS garments

[Kevin Deegan]

 these people have refused the water of   Life freely given and have chosen rather a way of Evil.Jer 2:13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain   of living waters, and hewed
 them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no   water.Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  if you won't list the imaginary offense about SP's then stop whining about it.DAVEH: Your retorts are so predictable, they are simply laughable Kevin! :-D  What difference does it make why the LDS folks in SLC are offended by the likes of you waving their underwear around like fools. The point is that you are offending them (not me) by doing such. As Perry suggesteddon't you think you owe them an apology?If you said such about someones wife, they would be justified in punching your lites
 out.DAVEH: ??? Huh? Just exactly what do you think I said that would justify that reaction? Please quote my specific comments so that we can see what you are talking about. If you don't have any specific quotes, then we can assume you are making this up!Kevin Deegan wrote: if you won't list the imaginary offense about SP's then stop whining about it.If you said such about someones wife, they would be justified in punching your lites out. The State of Utah would see it this way too.  On the other hand LDS who assault SP's because they are offended go to jail. That is after they find the smallest SP to attack from behind. Or better yet slam an elbow into the back
 of a Women holding a scripture sign. Must have been OFFENDED by the BIBLE. By the way it was a good thing here husband did not see that one. That is OK because God will judge. I bet He is even more upsetknowing that the Woman that LDS THUG hit from behind has cancer!  Spare me your whining if you can not discuss the problem seek couseling.Get over it your Religon is VILE  I will not Respect it.  Aint gonna happen  There is NOTHING Sacred in Mormonism.  It is a good thing we are not in the OT cause they were told to TEAR DOWN the groves!  In America there is Freedom of speech, you do not have the freedom to avoid offense.
   If you are OFFENDED by SP's take the recommendation of the Supreme court Plug your ears and avert your eyes!Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Maybe DH was angry.DAVEH: LOL.Even you should know me better than that, Kevin. I simply don't get angry. (Or at least I haven't yetI wonder what I would really say/do if that situation ever to happen)he WILL not list just what exactly is so OBNOXIOUS about itDAVEH: Why should I list such? I am not the one offended by it, Kevin. Obviously, there are a lot of LDS folks in SLC who are offended though. I tend not to
 take offense at such silly stuff, but apparently others do. They are the ones you should be apologizing to, according to Perrythe principle I was taught is that when you offend someone you apologize...even if you didn't mean to, even if you were joking, even if you think they are faking offense, apologizing is the right thing to do. Izzy got it. Kevin got it..So Kevindid you g et Perry's message??? If so, will you be apologizing to the folks you offend in SLC? Nowassuming you did not get the message (and will not apologize to those you have offended), would you be surprised if I continue offending the hypocrites of TT?It seems DH is saying it is OK to talk about his bedroom if it is done in jest.DAVEH: Isn't that what some TTers were doing when asking me about when and how I wear my underwear? I just replied in kind. Or,
 did you really think they were serious?  C'mmon now, Kevin.you are a smart guy, aren't you!  Now the big question, Kevin.....had I seriously responded to those very personal questions as though they were not asked in jest, would you have been able to avoid mocking, demeaning and denigrating my answers?Kevin Deegan wrote:   Why? Jjust because it is really the Street Preachers fault?  Maybe DH was angry. Of course he equates SP in front of the Temple as Obnoxius etc blah blah blah. But he WILL not list just what exactly is so OBNOXIOUS about it. anyway SP 's at the Temple have nothing to do with his off color Humor [sic]It is
 all about offense not right  wrong. it is only wrong if you can find someone to be offended by it. Right?It seems DH is saying it is OK to talk about his bedroom if it is done in jest.Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  A totally arrogant and insensitive reply, in my opinion.From: Dave Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the
 ControversyDate: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:52:53 -0800*And I apologize to all, especially to DaveH for provoking him. *DAVEH: Thank you for your apology, Izzy.But, as I'm sure you already know.it is not necessary to apologize to me. (Though the thought and consideration is most appreciated.) I had taken absolutely no offense at a ll in what you had posted. AndI suspect that you took no offense at 

Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore

[Kevin Deegan]

What is your point? You are INTREATING me?  Your point is you have no hope of dealing with the issues and haveRUN out of caricatures and false accusations so you must get the focus on other things.You have not answered my questions either.  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 MooreNot my spelling just my typing skills  my 2 typing fingers trip over one another  especially when I hit speeds of upwards of 10 words per minute!  It is a good thing I do not get paid for my typing skills at
 work.(hit the key to the left of d)sepends one of the most difficult to type words on the keyboard. two keys letters in close proximity! fingers get tripped up. strucre   INTREAT versus Entreat? not a spelling problem. Some would say this is easy.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Ignorant, stupid : akin to "idiot."   Kevin -- take a look at your
 misspellings : It sepends on how one looks at itHow about the sentence strucre and the meaningIndifference is active oposition in His book!  Like I said -- it is easy.   -Original Message-From: Kevin
 Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:27:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean MoorePaul is not saying that ignorant or stupid people have been intrusted with the gospel of Christ.He could not be!  ENtrusted: Put into the care or protection of someone[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 tohear -- over and over again - that Bill's conversation is so muchabove the rest of us. Lets be sure to ignore the fact that "God using the unwise to confound the wise" HAS Nothing TO DO WITH EDUCATIONAL Accomplishment's. The statement was written by a highly educated person -- but one who believed in Christ
 and FOR THAT REASONALONE was considered "unwise" and "foolish." Paul is not saying that ignorant or stupid people have been intrusted with the gospel of Christ.But go ahead and disagree with that.You prove nothing by so doing. jd  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:24:26 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean MooreYou are Bill and not Lance who made the "accusation" to begin with but apparently you two are open to the same kinds of thoughts.ATSTthe two of youare either unaware or ignorant as to just how patronizing and arrogant most of what  you write to the list
 is for others. Most everything Lance writes is an opinion that includes a non flattering judgment toward somebody's person rather than a contribution toward the subject at hand.And you Bill are so far off into academia that you are speaking in another tongue  most of the time so far as I am concerned anyway. The red letters below are definitely NOT "invective filled" I wrote them in good faith without the intent to injure or wound and I do not consider myself the enemy of either of you. It would be a good thing if both of you learned just who your enemy is in reality because this is just one more of his firey darts.   
 Great peace have they that love Thy Law and nothing offends them (causes them to stumble)   Psalm 119:165   On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:09:12 -0700 "Taylor" wmtaylor@plains.net writes:  What "invective" filled language Lance?  Examples pleaseOh the ignorance of those who don't see things the way you do again Lance along with the fact that you are unable or unwilling to produce an example of invective filled language coming from me.   Let's see "INVECTIVE"Okay, more below:Hmmm - Just as I thought, the Holy Spirit has been fired and men have taken over; men who exalt Greek present passive verbs..  OK Kevin God has spoken ... so now forever hold your
 peace.[I]t's not easy to try and sort out what Bill is sayinghere with Plato sitting in the RH cornerAmazing how the devil jumps in and shuts it down just when it starts getting good isn't it??Thank you for being a friend,Bill- Original Message -   From: Judy Taylor   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 10:11 AM  Subject: Re

Re: [TruthTalk] On taking offence where none is given

[Kevin Deegan]

The Temple garments are ALL about MODESTYLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  It reveals more of the one(s) who feign offence than the purported offender.An acquaintance of mine asked the other day about the distinction between fundamentalists and evangelicals. Part of what I had to say in response was that 'fundamentalism' is to be found in every faith and ideaology. Anyone for cutting Dave Hansen's tongue out? No wait, we ought to be cutting his fingers off so that he might not 'spill more virtual ink' on TT. C'mon folks, get a life and move on. Bill, 'G', John and David Miller were engaged in a genuine conversation to which we were all privy. Now this? Yikes!! an epiphany...shall we burn him at the stake (Calvin did have the
 odd good idea)__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

You can't finda greek grammar that will disagree with what hehas said.  DM shoots down your false accusations and now it is YOU THAT CAN NOT FIND!"Apparently you have not consulted too many grammars."  OUCH!JD why not stop the foolishness and start having a real conversation?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I couldn't find your reference in Robertson'sGreek grammar.Perhaps a page number. And it might be of more help to me if you gave the Table of Index headingin which this commentary is made just in case our page numbers do not match up (my copy is a 1934 editiion).  -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 08:48:06 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJD wrote: ... I would venture the guess that not a single translator, if asked to give an opinion on what Bill has written (in plain English, by the way, Terry) would dispute his commentary. Where in the world do you think Bill T came up with such ideas? You think he just made them up -- pulled them out of thin air??? You can't find a greek grammar that will disagree with what he has said.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 notion of purpose in "hagontes" (Ac. 21:16). In tous sozomenous (Ac. 2:47) the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of "tous hagiazomenous" in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10)."Notice how Robertson actually approaches this passage exactly the same way that Judy did for meaning. He goes back to Heb. 10:10, just like Judy did, to argue the proper meaning of 10:14 away from a progressive or iterative concept. His conclusion is similar to Judy's in that he says 10:14 is CERTAINLY ONLY descriptive durative.If you are familiar with Robertson's grammar, you know that he separates the durative action into various categories, the progressive present being one (which is Bill Taylor's treatment of Heb. 10:14) and the descriptive present being another one. I think if Robertson were here, he would have some comments that would pull Bill Taylor away from his present dogmatic stance. Considering how most translators have
 shied away from commiting to a progressive syntax, I think there are likely to be many others that would likewise find some disagreement with Bill's solid commitment to a progressive present meaning of Heb. 10:14.Peace be with you.David Miller.   
		 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore

[Kevin Deegan]

Translation I was gonna but I am NOT able.  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 textual criticism at any level.for Kevin Deegan, it is not the greek text that is important -- only the most recent edition of the KJ bible.  More than that, we
 have the manipulated list of the purified seven to demonstrateyour willingness to say whatever"needs" to be said in order to continue your point. In short, you and I are not having a serious discussion at all.You have not been honest in your presentation orperceived purpose. What would be the point ofgoing on? Especially in view of the fact that youcontinue to refuse to answers the difficult questions I presented and recently restated. So, I free you to go back to persecuting DH while some of us onlookers wonder about the credibility of anything you might say to him. jd  -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:11:23 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean MooreWhat is your point? You are INTREATING me?  Your point is you have no hope of dealing with the issues and haveRUN out of caricatures and false accusations so you must get the focus on other things.You have not answered my questions either.  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 MooreNot my spelling just my typing skills  my 2 typing fingers trip over one another  especially when I hit speeds of upwards of 10 words per minute!  It is a good thing I do not get paid for my typing skills at work.(hit the key to the left of d)sepends one of the most difficult to type words on the keyboard. two keys letters in close proximity! fingers get tripped up. strucre   INTREAT versus Entreat? not a spelling problem. Some would say this is easy.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Ignorant, stupid : akin to "idiot."   Kevin -- take a look at your misspellings : It sepends on how one looks at itHow about the sentence strucre and the meaningIndifference is active oposition in His book!  Like I said -- it is easy.   -Original Message-----From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:27:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean MoorePaul is not saying that ignorant or stupid people have been intrusted with the gospel of Christ.He could not be!  ENtrusted: Put into the care or protection of someone[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 tohear -- over and over again - that Bill's conversation is so muchabove the rest of us. Lets be sure to ignore the fact that "God using the unwise to confound the wise" HAS
 Nothing TO DO WITH EDUCATIONAL Accomplishment's. The statement was written by a highly educated person -- but one who believed in Christ and FOR THAT REASONALONE was considered "unwise" and "foolish." Paul is not saying that ignorant or stupid people have been intrusted with the gospel of Christ.But go ahead and disagree with that.You prove nothing by so doing. jd  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:24:26 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean MooreYou are Bill and not Lance who made the "accusation" to begin with but apparently you two are open to the same kinds of thoughts.ATSTthe two of youare either unaware or ignorant as to just how patronizing and arrogant most of what  you write to the list is for others. Most everything Lance writes is an opinion that includes a non flattering
 judgment toward somebody's person rather than a contribution toward the subject at hand.And you Bill are so far off into academia that you are speaking in another tongue  most of the time so far as I am concerned anyway. The red letters below are definitely NOT "invective filled" I wrote them in good fa

Re: [TruthTalk] Warning to corrector/revisors

[Kevin Deegan]

  WARNING for BIBLE CORRECTORS   Words are important even the "S" at the end of a word (Remember EVERY JOT  TITTLE not even one "IOTA" will be lost!) is important some have erred by not paying attention to the letter "S"! LetterS, Jots  Tittles even IOTA's are IMPORTANT! HOW THEY MISSED ONE LETTER MISSED IT ALL  MT 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.   Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seedS, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is
 Christ. SEE Gen 21:12 Rom 9:7 Heb 11:18 DETAILS IN the B-I-B-L-E   JN 8 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him,
 Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came Iof myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe
 me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.   To some Jesus says my word hath no place in you.  Mess with God's word He just may mess with your mind  RM 1;28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind   2Tim 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds,
 reprobate concerning the faith.   REMEMBER SOME HEARTS God opens Some hearts God Hardens! (Which are you?)  Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.  Ex 9:12 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them  And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the
 scriptures?  Is 63 O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance.  Watch out lest you end up like the mormons: JN 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
		 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore

[Kevin Deegan]

Translation:I still don't get it![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 MooreTranslation I was gonna but I am NOT able.  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 textual criticism at any level.for Kevin Deegan, it is not the greek text that is important -- only the most recent edition of the KJ bible.  More than that, we have the manipulated list of the purified seven to demonstrateyour willingness to say whatever"needs" to be said in order to continue your point. In short, you and I are not having a serious discussion at all.You have not been honest in your presentation orperceived purpose. What would be the point ofgoing on? Especially in view of the fact that youcontinue to refuse to answers the difficult questions I presented and recently restated.  
   So, I free you to go back to persecuting DH while some of us onlookers wonder about the credibility of anything you might say to him. jd  -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:11:23 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean MooreWhat is your point? You are INTREATING
 me?  Your point is you have no hope of dealing with the issues and haveRUN out of caricatures and false accusations so you must get the focus on other things.You have not answered my questions either.  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 MooreNot my spelling just my typing skills  my 2 typing fingers trip over one another  especially when I hit speeds of upwards of 10 words per minute!  It is a good thing I do not get paid for my typing skills at work.(hit the key to the left of d)sepends one of the most difficult to type words on the keyboard. two keys letters in close proximity! fingers get tripped up. strucre   INTREAT versus Entreat? not a spelling problem. Some would say this is easy.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Ignorant, stupid : akin to "idiot."   Kevin -- take a look at your misspellings : It sepends on how one looks at itHow about the sentence strucre and the meaningIndifference is active oposition in His book!  Like I said -- it is easy.   -Original Message-----From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent:
 Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:27:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean MoorePaul is not saying that ignorant or stupid people have been intrusted with the gospel of Christ.He could not be!  ENtrusted: Put into the care or protection of someone[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 tohear -- over and over again - that Bill's conversation is so muchabove the rest of us. Lets be sure to ignore the fact that "God using the unwise to confound the wise" HAS Nothing TO DO WITH EDUCATIONAL Accomplishment's. The statement was written by a highly educated person -- but one who believed in Christ and FOR THAT REASONALONE was considered "unwise" and "foolish." Paul is not saying that ignorant or stupid people have been intrusted with the gospel of Christ.But go ahead and disagree with that.You prove nothing by so doing. jd  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:24:26 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean MooreYou are Bill and not Lance who made the "accusation" to begin with but apparently you two are open to the same kinds of thoughts.ATSTthe two of youare either unaware or ignorant as to just how patronizing and arrogant most of what  you write to the list is for others. Most everything Lance writes is an opinion that includes a non flatteri

Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.

[Kevin Deegan]

Knowing Dean personally, he is not one to feign anything.  He is deeply concerned with holiness and I believe I can testify that he lives it too.  I would not assume anything as far as the mat either.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  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 shut up -- probably not possible. You are welcome to come to the
 house.In spite of the rhetoric, I think it would actually wind up being a good experience. Bring your wife and suitable attire for the gym. We can make the arrangements off line. But stop with the feigned distress over the DH-Izzy situation. You are accomplishing absolutely no good whatsoever. jd-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 10:08:49 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.  - Original Message -   From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/26/2005 9:35:52 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.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?DUH-Tell us of your sexual experiences Izzy-Duh And why are you taking offense at something for which Linda is not?Simple you don't talk to womenlike that around me-and then there are the sinful overtone.Finally, you have offered advice to a women (Linda) who has asked us all to move on. Did youmiss that point? So, why don't you take her advice and butt out.Did sheadviceme to butt out- or are you lying again? Why don't you make me butt out mouth.Jd-Original Message-From: Dean
 Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:05:36 -0500Subject: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.cd:My advice is for Izzy to show this to here husband-and let him resolve  this matter. Then the snake in the grass will learn respect for a decent  women and not to try and speak to her as one would a whore. He is not sorry  for anything-as he has no morality.Don't even know right from wrong and  apparently neither does a few others on this list-no discernment even to  seeing no
 problem with asking a women such questions-even another mans  wife-evil wicked hearted people claiming to be children of God that cannot  even receive the milk of the word-and yet defend their ignorance with more  ignorance. [Original Message]   From: Charles Perry Locke cpl2602@hotmail.com   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Date: 11/25/2005 11:06:37 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?   John, Izzy opened the door, and has realized that and apologized for it(maybe you missed that post). It was DH that walked through that door andtook it to the gutter. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?   Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:50:46 -0500Hey tough guy,   it was Linda Shields who open the door to this thread   -- not DH.   -Original Message-   From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:01:31 -0500   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?  - Original Message -   From: Lance Muir   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: 11/25/2005 8:31:48 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles? Ah and, we wonder over violence in society! Thanks for the  
  illustration, Dean.   cd; There are some things that one is just to fight over-My family wasplaces under my care and protection-by God. It is my duty to do so evenagainst those who have no decent icy or morals to speak to another man  wifeas a whore.   - Original Message -   From: Dean Moore   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: November 25, 2005 08:21   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles? cd: You are speaking to the wife of another man-try that with mine and Iwill be on your door step in a couple of days-go ahead and ask her
 she  willbe reading your next response! - Original Message -   From: Dave   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: 11/24/2005 11:30:35 PM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles? RE: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences  DAVEH:   Do you suppose CPL will know anything about them, Dean!?!?!?!;-)  Dean Moore wrote:   cd: Where is our monitor? Charles? 
 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences  

Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.

[Kevin Deegan]

Is Dean your Enemy? Your Opponent?  What would you know about Holiness seeing you believe "we are ALL sinners"If physical violence is not a sign of Holiness then Jesus Christ is NOT Holy.  Then there is no such thing as Righteous Anger.  He rained down FIRE on Sodom  He flooded the whole Earth  He is coming SOON in Flaming Fire taking Vengeance on them that know not God  obey not the gospel!  He could have cleansed the Temple with just a word I wonder why he instead chose a SCOURGE that He himself built?  Maybe because He could not find Himself a Man.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 2005 14:07:23 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.Knowing Dean personally, he is not one to feign anything.  He is deeply concerned with holiness and I believe I can testify that he lives it too.  I would not assume anything as far as the mat either.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  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 shut up -- probably not possible. You are welcome to come to the house.In spite of the rhetoric, I think it would actually wind up being a good experience. Bring your wife and suitable attire for the gym. We can make the arrangements off line. But stop with the feigned distress over the DH-Izzy situation. You are accomplishing absolutely no good whatsoever. jd-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 10:08:49 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.  - Original Message -   From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/26/2005 9:35:52 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.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?DUH-Tell us of your sexual experiences Izzy-Duh And why are you taking offense at something for which Linda is not?Simple you don't talk to womenlike that around me-and then there are the sinful overtone.Finally, you have offered advice to a women (Linda) who has asked us all to move on. Did youmiss that point? So, why don't you take her advice and butt out.Did sheadviceme to butt out- or are you lying again? Why don't you make me butt out mouth.Jd-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:05:36 -0500Subject: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.cd:My advice is for Izzy to show this to here husband-and let him resolve  this matter. Then the snake in the grass will learn respect for a decent  women and not to try and speak to her as one would a whore. He is not sorry  for anything-as he has no morality.Don't even know right from wrong and  apparently neither does a few others on this list-no discernment even to  seeing no   problem with asking a women such questions-even another mans  wife-evil wicked hearted people claiming to be children of God that cannot  even receive the milk
 of the word-and yet defend their ignorance with more  ignorance. [Original Message]   From: Charles Perry Locke cpl2602@hotmail.com   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Date: 11/25/2005 11:06:37 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?   John, Izzy opened the door, and has realized that and apologized for it(maybe you missed that post). It was DH that walked through that door andtook it to the gutter. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?   Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:50:46 -0500Hey tough guy,   it was Linda Shields who open the door to this thread   -- not DH.   -Original Message-   From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:01:31 -0500   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?  - Original   Message -   From: Lance Muir   To:
 TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: 11/25/2005 8:31:48 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles? Ah and, we wonder over violence in society! Thanks for the  illustration, Dean.   cd; There are some things that one is just to fight over-My family was

Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy

[Kevin Deegan]

Your Filthy garments are Rejected by God, just as your righteousness is, they areNOTHING but FILTHY RAGS!Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   What difference does it make why the LDS folks in SLC are offended by the likes of you waving their underwear around like fools. DAVEH: I just thought you would want to take Perry's advice..*the principle I was taught is that when you offend someone you apologize...even if you didn't mean to, even if you were joking, even if you think they are faking offense, apologizing is the right thing to do. Izzy got it. Kevin got it. Evidently arrogant people don't get it. * to heart, Kevin. Apparently, contrary to
 Perry's mistaken opinion..you still...don't get it, Kevin. And, IFF Perry's next statement is correct...Evidently arrogant people don't get it..then logically, would that not make you arrogant?Kevin Deegan wrote:  What difference does it make why the LDS folks in SLC are offended by the likes of you waving their underwear around like fools. The point is that you are offending them (not me) by doing such. As Perry suggesteddon't you think you owe them an apology?  May I quote you?  DAVEH: ??? Huh? Just exactly what do you think I said that would justify that reaction? Please quote my specific comments so that we can see what you are talking about. If you don't
 have any specific quotes, then we can assume you are making this up!  The best you can do is draw some imaginary picture in your mind of "waving their underwear around like fools"   Fools wear them as a RELIGIOUS _expression_!  They are the equivilent of the Pagan ROMAN CATHOLIC Scapular.  They Trust their scapular LDS trust undies.  N o wonder they are offended I would not want anyone to know about such foolishness. Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  if you won't list the imaginary offense about SP's then stop whining about it.DAVEH: Your retorts are so predictable, they are simply laughable Kevin! :-D  What difference does it make why the LDS folks in SLC are offended by the likes of you waving their underwear around like fools. The point is that you are offending them (not me) by doing such. As Perry suggesteddon't you think you owe them an apology?If you said such about someones wife, they would be justified in punching your lites out.DAVEH: ??? Huh? Just exactly what do you think I said that would justify that reaction? Please quote my specific comments so that we can see what you are talking about. If you don't have any specific quotes, then we can assume you are making this up!Kevin Deegan wrote: if you won't list the imaginary offense about SP's then stop
 whining about it.If you said such about someones wife, they would be justified in punching your lites out. The State of Utah would see it this way too.  On the other hand LDS who assault SP's because they are offended go to jail. That is after they find the smallest SP to attack from behind. Or better yet slam an elbow into the back of a Women holding a scripture sign . Must have been OFFENDED by the BIBLE. By the way it was a good thing here husband did not see that one. That is OK because God will judge. I bet He is even more upsetknowing that the Woman that LDS THUG hit from behind has cancer!  Spare me your whining if you can not discuss the problem seek couseling.Get over it your Religon is VILE
  I will not Respect it.  Aint gonna happen  There is NOTHING Sacred in Mormonism.  It is a good thing we are not in the OT cause they were told to TEAR DOWN the groves!  In America there is Freedom of speech, you do not have the freedom to avoid offense.   If you are OFFENDED by SP's take the recommendation of the Supreme court Plug your ears and avert your eyes!Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Maybe DH was angry.DAVEH: LOL.Even you should know me better than that,
 Kevin. I simply don't get angry. (Or at least I haven't yetI wonder what I would really say/do if that situation ever to happen)he WILL not list just what exactly is so OBNOXIOUS about itDAVEH: Why should I list such? I am not the one offended by it, Kevin. Obviously, there are a lot of LDS folks in SLC who are offended though. I tend not to take offense at such silly stuff, but apparen tly others do. They are the ones you should be apologizing to, according to Perrythe principle I was taught is that when you offend someone you apologize...even if you didn't mean to, even if you were joking, even if you think they are faking offense, apologizing is the right thing to do. Izzy got it. Kevin got it..So Kevindid you g et Perry's message??? If so, will you be apologizing to the folks you offend in
 SLC? Nowassuming you did not get the message (and will not apologize to those you have offended), would you be surprised if I continue offending the hypocrites of TT?It seems DH is saying it is OK to talk about his bedroom if it is done in jest.DAVEH: Isn't that what some TTers were doing when asking me 

Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy

[Kevin Deegan]

Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.  Gen 35 Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  again, toward Wisdom, Bro: That they're rejected by God is a compound problem for DaveH--its bound toinitiatecertain disturbing psychological ramifications, too; however, that you totally reject him in this context is neither part of the Gospel message nor the desire of its Creator (E.g., re-read Matt 11 and examine Hisheat-felt
 wrathless emotions there, too, partic as hezeroed inon the Cross)On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:42:11 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Your Filthy garments are Rejected by God, just as your righteousness is, they areNOTHING but FILTHY RAGS!||__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [TruthTalk] Dave's Disrespect.

[Kevin Deegan]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  perhaps you won't mind some thoughtful suggestions toward politeand perceptive Wisdom, Bro(?)also, if (His)simultaneouspeaceand love werenot thoroughly indicative of (His) holiness, then JC wasn't holyOn Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:38:59 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:  If[His personal] physical violence [under certain so farunique circumstances]is not[one] sign of Holiness then Jesus Christ [wa]s NOT Holy.  ||__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy

[Kevin Deegan]

Neither are you a Jew.   10 CMDS gone cause it was written to the Jews  OT Gone since it was written to Jews!  What a convenient theology.Except for one problem.  ALL scripture is given by God and is Profitable for Doctrine, for correction, for instruction  DH may not be Cain but he offers the same offering, the fruit of his works  which are FILTHY RAGS in God's eyes.  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  DaveH ain't Cain, Bro--neither is he an IsraeliteOn Sat, 26 Nov 2005 19:31:17 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.  Gen 35 Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments  ||
		 Yahoo! Personals 
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet. 
Lot's of someone's, actually. Try Yahoo! Personals

Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy

[Kevin Deegan]

Put away the strange gods![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:..and he made Bob Dylan a leather jacket, i heard--that's a positive comment on the subject of 'garments'--eh? what's wrong with that??:)On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:46:33 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:DaveH ain't Cain, Bro--neither is he an IsraeliteOn Sat, 26 Nov 2005 19:31:17 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.  Gen 35 Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments  ||
		 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

Thanks for the Illustration in the foolishness of trusting the critics to ever settle the matter. Let the greek scholars argue amongst themselves over trivial matters while we go on our way loving our King and obeying the revelation He has already given to the those before and now us.  While we run the race set before us they can iron out these issues on the sideline. They probably won't even notice since they will be absorbed into the Greek Game!  Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  I wrote: Iinclude "themselves" here because there is no other object to receive the action of the verb: sanctification.DM  Sanctification / Sanctified is NOT the verb. Maybe this is what is causing some of the confusion here.My apologies, David, I did not mean to imply that the word sanctification is a verb, although I can see how you could conclude that this is what I was stating. I meant to convey the idea that sanctification is what the verb is about; it is what the subject is producing in its (in this instance, his) recipients.DM  The KJV translates the passage in present tense, not past tense. It does not indicate that our sanctification is complete or not complete. It only indicates that we are sanctified. Do we agree on this?Well, not exactly, David-- but I appreciate what you have done to crystallize my thinking here. While yours is a possible reading, it is not a necessary reading, and as such the KJ translation is not here as definite as it ought to be in order to be considered avery "good" translation. Let me explain.In English the verb "are," when used with a participle, performs a linking function,but it does not necessarily express voice; i.e, it may also be functioning exclusively as a descriptive (those who "are sanctified," the action being complete).*And so when used by itself, "are" is syntactically ambiguous: it could be a passive auxiliaryor merely a verb of status, and this becausethere is nothing definite to force it to go one way or the other. In order to resolve the ambiguity, definition must be providedby adding another "be" verb (cf. "are being") which also makes the verb progressive (e.g., We are being sanctified as opposed to We are sanctified), and it is only now that the verb can be construed as a distinct passive --not descriptive; hence two semantic effects are accomplishby the one syntactic change: forcing a passive interpretation, and adding a progressive aspect.This, in my opinion,is what is taking place in the Greek,where the participle hagiazomenousis definitely passive as well as progressively present (unless, as I demonstrated yesterday, you want to argue for a middle voice, which would also need to be translated in a way which would convey definition). And so, my conclusion is this: the present tense thrust of
 this participle needs to be extended beyond a mere linking verb if it is to convey a definitepassive voice in a presentprogressive state; therefore it needs toread "those who are being sanctified." And so,my criticism remains the same: 'A cursory reading of this verse may leave one with the impression that the "perfected"are thosewhose sanctification is complete: they are, after all, "sanctified," aren't they?' But, David, I am ready to leave off on this discussion, as I can tell that it has become too complex to be helpful to the average Joe -- or Dean or Terry :) so I hope that you will consider these distinctions,and maybebegin to see thereasons for my concern. God bless you and yours,Bill*I want to acknowledge Debbie for her contribution, via a sidebar exchange,in communicating these rather difficult concepts.  __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [TruthTalk] 'God's Politics' Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It - Jim Wallis

[Kevin Deegan]

Thanks Lance now we know your car is blue!What an example of the Man of God, Filth mouthed Bono?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  "The Left mocks the Right. The Right knows its right. Two ugly traits. How far should we go to try to understand each other's point of view? Maybe the distance grace covered on the cross is a clue." Bono, lead singer of U2  
		 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

God gave the Word he gave us the Holy Spirit and as Dean points out some were able to GET IT, right out of the gate!  When are the rest going to getIN the race?Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  cd: Judy I think we are being called ignorant by Miller,Bill.and others will add their remarks to show their superiority. Yet for a week now they could no come to any conclusion on the meaning of one word in the Bible-Yet us ignorant people gave the meaning of the present and future tense of the word sanctified as Christ taught in the bible the first time out. Imagine what would happen if these superior Genius' decide to interpreted the entire bible-all of us ignorant people would be in heaven-with the other ignorant people-before they could complete one book of
 the bible.I thank God that he had pity on us poor dumb humans else our IQs would prevent us from ever obtaining salvation-and then only the wise superior intellectuals would make it. Yet have you noticed how must that same group lacks in understanding-They don't even know to keep God's commandments and see no difference in the behavior of the saved and the lost-they believe we all are ongoing sinful people. They often run around speaking in tongues that no one ca n understand to show how holy they are while no one can figure on the meaning of their words-Maybe they are repeating the answer to the present passive voice question in a heavenly language and don't know it. So don't feel bad God love stupid people too-we will just have to make use with the little intellect we have:-)  -
 Original Message -   From: Judy Taylor   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/25/2005 2:10:10 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorOn Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:07:01 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I don't
 think they were misled by the passage. I think they perceived that you do not perceive the completed aspect of sanctification, and you were trying to use your Greek exegesis skills to make this passage prove your point.This is correct; the scriptures are spiritually discerned rather than Gk exegetically manipulated.You have to understand, John, that many on this list do not have the educational background to talk on your level about these matters. We really should not run roughshod over them. We need to do the translating for them.Wait a minute David, this really troubles me. Why pump JD up about his great learning when this is his problem?  You've mentioned in the past that you think I am against education. Not so when it comes to a dentist or doctor who is going to work on
 me. I want them to have done their homework. However this is IMO totally misplaced in the body of Christ and from my experience it has caused no end ofproblems. All education can do is give one a historical background, it can never impart spiritual understanding - Deans questionaire on Calvin is a good example of how that works sincewe are still reaping what he sowed into the body of Christ and it's fruit is not good.I found some of the conversation interesting, because Judy often has repeated her viewpoint that we are all in the process of being sanctified. My belief David is that there is a triune aspect to both salvation and sanctification ie: we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved, same forsanctification; andI saw the verse in question (Heb 10:14) as referring to Heb 10:10 and theonce for all aspect. So all we did on
 that thread is what 2 Tim 2:14 warns us not to do which is to "strive about words to no profit"I notice it because from my perspective, she often fails to apprehend the completeness of sanctification that already has taken place for some believers (those who embrace Christian perfection and sanctification). Am I missing something David, are theresome who are "locked in" to Christian perfection and sanctification and not others? This is reminiscent of Calvin's select of the elect. 1 Thess 5:23 speaks of our whole "spirit, soul, and body" being preserved blameless and for one believe everyone's mind needs renewing from the start.Yet in this matter, she fought tooth and nail against the concept. You shook your head in disbelief, but I think there is valid reason why she took that position. I know I just lost you... sorry.
 I'm tired and must sign off now. God bless.JD's claim that Kevin and I prove his point is ironic since he and Bill proved the point made earlier about the danger of the newer translations where men feel free to correct God's Word in light of the "supposedly" newer Greek (read Westcott and Hort) manuscripts.From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] No it does not  Perhaps this is true in your case. I am not sure you understand the problem, but I think you do. Others, clearly, do not and that is my point. The average reader will see this
 as a completed action. Kevin and Judy have made such arguments and prove my point. IN THAT 

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

Lance why are you always so worried about what others think about you?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  I have every confidence that neither David Miller nor Bill Taylor thought the two of you 'ignorant'. Their character (read sanctification) wouldn't permit such a thought.However, after reading this...welln, they still wouldn't!- Original Message -   From: Dean Moore   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: November 25, 2005 08:13  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorcd: Judy I think we are being called ignorant by Miller,Bill.and others will add their remarks to show their superiority. Yet for a week now they could no come to any conclusion on the meaning of one word in the Bible-Yet us ignorant people gave the meaning of the present and future tense of the word sanctified as Christ taught in the bible the first time out. Imagine what would happen if these superior Genius' decide to interpreted the entire bible-all of us ignorant people would be in heaven-with the other ignorant people-before they could complete one book of the bible.I thank God that he had pity on us poor dumb humans else our IQs would prevent us from ever
 obtaining salvation-and then only the wise superior intellectuals would make it. Yet have you noticed how must that same group lacks in understanding-They don't even know to keep God's commandments and see no difference in the behavior of the saved and the lost-they believe we all are ongoing sinful people. They often run around speaking in tongues that no one ca n understand to show how holy they are while no one can figure on the meaning of their words-Maybe they are repeating the answer to the present passive voice question in a heavenly language and don't know it. So don't feel bad God love stupid people too-we will just have to make use with the little intellect we have:-)  - Original Message -   From: Judy Taylor   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/25/2005 2:10:10 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorOn Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:07:01 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I don't think they were misled by the passage. I think they perceived that you do not perceive
 the completed aspect of sanctification, and you were trying to use your Greek exegesis skills to make this passage prove your point.This is correct; the scriptures are spiritually discerned rather than Gk exegetically manipulated.You have to understand, John, that many on this list do not have the educational background to talk on your level about these matters. We really should not run roughshod over them. We need to do the translating for them.Wait a minute David, this really troubles me. Why pump JD up about his great learning when this is his problem?  You've mentioned in the past that you think I am against education. Not so when it comes to a dentist or doctor who is going to work on me. I want them to have done their homework. However this is IMO totally misplaced in the
 body of Christ and from my experience it has caused no end ofproblems. All education can do is give one a historical background, it can never impart spiritual understanding - Deans questionaire on Calvin is a good example of how that works sincewe are still reaping what he sowed into the body of Christ and it's fruit is not good.I found some of the conversation interesting, because Judy often has repeated her viewpoint that we are all in the process of being sanctified. My belief David is that there is a triune aspect to both salvation and sanctification ie: we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved, same forsanctification; andI saw the verse in question (Heb 10:14) as referring to Heb 10:10 and theonce for all aspect. So all we did on that thread is what 2 Tim 2:14 warns us not to do which is to "strive about words to no
 profit"I notice it because from my perspective, she often fails to apprehend the completeness of sanctification that already has taken place for some believers (those who embrace Christian perfection and sanctification). Am I missing something David, are theresome who are "locked in" to Christian perfection and sanctification and not others? This is reminiscent of Calvin's select of the elect. 1 Thess 5:23 speaks of our whole "spirit, soul, and body" being preserved blameless and for one believe everyone's mind needs renewing from the start.Yet in this matter, she fought tooth and nail against the concept. You shook your head in disbelief, but I think there is valid reason why she took that position. I know I just lost you... sorry. I'm tired and must sign off now. God bless.JD's claim that Kevin and I prove his point is ironic since he and Bill proved the point made earlier about the danger of the newer translations where men feel free to correct God's Word in light of the "supposedly" newer Greek (read Westcott and Hort) manuscripts.From: 

RE: [TruthTalk] Religion in America

[Kevin Deegan]

Coming soon to a Facility near you Muslim Prayer rooms!Mission Accomplished: Giant's Stadium, Continental Airlines Arena To Set Aside Muslim Prayer Area  "First Islamic Pray-Ground" of New Jersey  http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/home.htmPro-Football Game Erupts During Muslim Prayer Service at Giants Stadium http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/meadowlands.htm  Stadium "Victim of Profiling" Vocal Proponent of Wahabbi Doctrine  Victim posted online statements such as QUOTE "Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar! Laa illaha illa Allah! ...Prepare for Battle."__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?

[Kevin Deegan]

Try it with me  I will give you MORE than an Illustration!I bet an efFEMminate 'Jesus' would not care if a man spoke to Lances wife inapropriatelyLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Ah and, we wonder over violence in society! Thanks for the illustration, Dean.- Original Message -   From: Dean Moore   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: November 25, 2005 08:21  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?cd: You are speaking to the wife of another man-try that with mine and I will be on your door step in a couple of days-go ahead and ask her she will be reading your next response!  - Original Message -   From: Dave   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/24/2005 11:30:35 PM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?  RE: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual ExperiencesDAVEH: Do you suppose CPL will know anything about them, Dean!?!?!?! ;-) Dean Moore wrote:   cd: Where is our monitor? Charles?  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences  Hardly. J
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
 Of DaveSent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 12:16 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual ExperiencesYou know I'll tell!DAVEH: Wow Izzy..I am rather surprised to hear you say that!  But it is nice to know you are not so hypocritical that you would not be willing
 to post on TT such personal things as you expect me to share.  Now that I think about it Izzy, I'm sure it would be much more interesting for TTers to hear about your sexual experiences than mine. Do tell! :-[ ShieldsFamily wrote:   You know I'll tell! :-)
 DAVEH: Do you really think it is appropriate to discuss such personal things on a public forum that is known for its lack of taste at times? If you really want to know the answer to personal questions such as that, contact me off-Forum and I'll answer your question.ShieldsFamily wrote:   So DO you??? I’ve read that you’re supposed to leave them on then, too.DAVEH: That is not my understanding, nor would I think anybody else (LDS) understands it that way. Howeverit is not a topic I've discussed with others, nor have I ever heard it discussed in any LDS meetings I've attended or in other official discussions. There are numerous instances where it is not appropriate to wear them, viz., playing basketball, swimming, etc.ShieldsFamily wrote:   How about during sex, DaveH? I’ve read that you’re supposed to leave them on then, too. True or false? izzy  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:31 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!  The Mormons have to leave them on even while taking a bath-They slide them to one side and wash one half of their bodies
 at a time.DAVEH: Hmmm.I continue to learn by my presence on TT. That's one I haven't tried yet, Dean! :-D  Note to Perry: Like I said, I'm here to learn what Protestants (and Dean, if he isn't a P) believe. If nothing else, learning that you folks believe such things as this is a constant form of entertainment! :-) Dean Moore wrote:   Just asking --- who said anything about being drunk? I mean, you guys wave men's underwear around , so why not chew. Whatever. cd: You had mentioned me "sobering up" before- I don't chew tobacco-And the Mormons claim that their underwear is Holy-a sign of their royal Melchizedek Priesthood which is worn under their clothing as we are not worthy to view these holy objects-They are easy to obtain for the local pawn shops as many are getting rid of them. We hold them up and declare that true holiness is to live by the gospel of Christ which is an inner cleanlinessnot an outer cleanliness. The Mormons have to leave them on even while taking a
 bath-They slide them to one side and wash one half of their bodies at a time. --~~~   Dave Hansen   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.langlitz.com   ~~~   If you wish to receive   things I find interesting,   I maintain six email lists...   JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,   STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.  
		 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?

[Kevin Deegan]

Do you let men speak to your wife in such a way Lance?Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  - Original Message - From: Lance Muir   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/25/2005 8:31:48 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?   
 Ah and, we wonder over violence in society! Thanks for the illustration, Dean.  cd; There are some things that one is just to fight over-My family was places under my care and protection-by God. It is my duty to do so even against those who have no decent icy or morals to speak to another man wife as a whore.- Original Message -   From: Dean Moore   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: November 25, 2005
 08:21  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?cd: You are speaking to the wife of another man-try that with mine and I will be on your door step in a couple of days-go ahead and ask her she will be reading your next response!  - Original Message -   From: Dave   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/24/2005 11:30:35 PM   Subject: Re:
 [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?  RE: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual ExperiencesDAVEH: Do you suppose CPL will know anything about them, Dean!?!?!?! ;-) Dean Moore wrote:   cd: Where is our monitor? Charles?  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences  Hardly. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of DaveSent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 12:16 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual ExperiencesYou know I'll tell!DAVEH: Wow Izzy..I am rather surprised to hear you say that!  But it is nice to know you are not so hypocritical that you would not be willing to post on TT such personal things as you expect me to share.  Now that I think about it Izzy, I'm sure it would be much more interesting for TTers to hear about your sexual experiences than mine. Do tell! :-[ ShieldsFamily wrote:   You know I'll tell! :-) DAVEH: Do you really think it is appropriate to discuss such personal things on a public forum that is known for its lack of taste at times? If you really want to know the answer to personal questions such as that, contact me off-Forum and I'll answer your question.ShieldsFamily wrote:   So DO you??? I’ve read that you’re supposed to leave them on then, too.DAVEH: That is not my understanding, nor would I think anybody else (LDS) understands it that way. Howeverit is not a topic I've discussed with others, nor have I ever heard it discussed in any LDS meetings I've attended or in other official discussions. There are numerous instances where it is not appropriate to wear them, viz., playing basketball, swimming, etc.ShieldsFamily wrote:   How about during sex,
 DaveH? I’ve read that you’re supposed to leave them on then, too. True or false? izzy  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:31 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!  The Mormons have to leave them on even while taking a bath-They slide them to one side and wash one half of their bodies at a time.DAVEH: Hmmm.I continue to learn by my presence on TT. That's one I haven't tried yet,
 Dean! :-D  Note to Perry: Like I said, I'm here to learn what Protestants (and Dean, if he isn't a P) believe. If nothing else, learning that you folks believe such things as this is a constant form of entertainment! :-) Dean Moore wrote:   Just asking --- who said anything about being drunk? I mean, you guys wave men's underwear around , so why not chew. Whatever. cd: You had mentioned me "sobering up" before- I don't chew tobacco-And the Mormons claim that their underwear is Holy-a sign of their royal Melchizedek Priesthood which is worn under their clothing as we are not worthy to view these holy objects-They are easy to obtain for the local pawn shops as many are getting rid of them. We hold them up and declare that true holiness is to live by the gospel of Christ which is an inner cleanlinessnot an outer cleanliness. The Mormons have to leave them on even while taking a bath-They slide them to one side and wash one half of their bodies at a time. --~~~   Dave Hansen   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.langlitz.com   ~~~   If you wish to receive   things I find interesting,   I maintain six email lists...   JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,   STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 

RE: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

The bible declares  Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.Jesus was our ultimate example.When certain men came to him to questionDeut 25:5,6:  Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Jesus did not say (mayI quote) A much better translation would be as Bill suggested, IMO  He did not say the 'originals say'  He did not say You fools didn't you notice the Past Participle!He said:  And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?Where did Jesus ever question the authority, availabilityor the translation of the scriptures?  ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Amazing those that argue against JD, always just end up proving his point in his OWN mind. J  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 6:58 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No it does not  Perhaps this is true in your case. I am not sure you understand the
 problem, but I think you do. Others, clearly, do not and that is my point. The average reader will see this as a completed action. Kevin and Judy have made such arguments and prove my point. IN THAT REGARD, this is a poor translation of the text. A much better translation would be as Bill suggested, IMO. Jd  -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:54:48 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  JD wrote: The translation presents the reader with a  completed task when that is not the case. No it does not. The translation is present passive. You keep trying to portray falsely that it is past tense. Nothing in this translation indicates whether our sanctification is completed oris still ongoing. It only indicates that we are sanctified at the present time.Peace.David Miller.  - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 5:42 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:06:28 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJD wrote:  I think Bill's point (correct me if I am wrong,  Bill) is that the
 KJ translation gives us a past  tense translation of a present tense participle.  There is no good reason for doing such and  in that context, it is a "mistake." I did not understand Bill this way, but if that is what he is saying, hewould be wrong. The phrase "are sanctified" is not past tense. The syntax of "sanctified" looks like a past tense construction, but it is simply a participle construction of the verb "sanctify" that looks
 the same as the past tense form of the verb. The tense of the verb is present tense, as indicated by the word "are." If it were past tense, the phrase would be "were sanctified" not "are sanctified." The translation presents the reader with a completed task when that is not the case. JD wrote:  In the English, this past tense translation
 circumvents  ENTIRELY the impact of sanctification as ongoing  event by another in our lives. It would only be your own personal reading of "are sanctified" that would circumvent ENTIRELY the impact of sanctification as an ongoing event. The phrase is present tense, and hence it does not circumvent anything of the sort.   Your confusion in the first paragraph would seem to prove my point. Peace be with you.
 David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.   Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.  __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

More Barfh  The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text This is not the belief as most christians who simply believe  obeythe word of God it is Barthian in as much as he has a "Personal Encouter" with the text. The Bible is only God's Word to the extent that God causes it to be his Word, to the extent that he speaks through it. The texts are authoritative not in virtue of any inherent property they may have, such as being inerrant or inspired, but by virtue of a function they fill in the life of the Christian community.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to childrenThe CREED of the Alexandrian Cult  There is no final authority but God.Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error.There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where
 the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26).So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13).So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite.The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used.But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we
 will prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.net wrote:   cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children-Point-What do the teachings of Gods words instructone to do-Then
 live by that-for you will be judged by that standard- if theheart is true to the intent of wanting truth-the proud will never see itanyway. [Original Message] From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG> Date: 11/24/2005 6:40:45 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Bill wrote:  You highlight the problem with leaving off the  present passive aspect of this participle, David; I have not left off the present passive aspect. In English, we don't  conjugate the participle this way, but 

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

d by this text.Peace be with you.  David Miller.- Original Message -   From: Taylor   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:19 PM  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorWell actually, "by one offering" is a prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: "he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't expect you to be able to understandit.Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I don't expect you to understand that either.Bill  - Original Message -   From: Kevin Deegan   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 11:57 AM  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThe subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com wrote: I don't speculate on all that Bill because in my understanding the active part of sanctificationrequires  the cooperation of the one being sanctified; the kind of cooperation an unbeliever would be unable to  give.On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:11:28 -0700 "Taylor" wmtaylor@plains.net writes:That's fine, Judy, but who in this discussion has argued that to sanctify
 does not mean the same as to set apart? That is not even a point of contention. Do you agree that this participle in Heb 10.14 reflect asanctification which is passive (i.e., the action is being performed by someone other than the subject) and not yet complete? BillFrom: Judy Taylor I have no idea what you are talking about Bill. However I do understand Hebrews 10:14  and the word "sanctified" in this instance means "set apart" in the same way that an unbelieving  wife is "set apart" in 1 Cor 7:14 which is "set apart in the sense that she is become the object of   focus because of the faith and influence of her husband. It would be impossible for her to be  sanctified in any other sense because she remains unregenerated and dead in her trespass and  sin.On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 05:50:27 -0700 "Taylor" wmtaylor@plains.net writes:Fair enough. Do you accept the present passive thrust of this verb? My impression is that you do not. 
   BillFrom: Judy Taylor Are you living in some kind of delusion Bill?  My understanding of that text remains the same as it was, so please let's deal with reality here  rather than presumption. jt   judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) 
  judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)  Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)   judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)   judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)  
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)  
		 Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

How sad JD that you so completely identify with sin The problem is without the POWER of God in our lives it is impossible.  To as many as recieved him to them gave he power to become the sons of God.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?Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  How sad JD that you so completely identify with sin when Jesus died so that we could separate
 ourselves  from sin and choose toidentify and walk in the gift ofHis righteousness.   Thisseparationis known as "sanctification"  Under the Old Covenant theydid it ritually as Moses regularly called the congregation to sanctify themselves  We arecalled to do this in it's entirety - that is to put off sin and put on Christ  The importance of this is shown in how God judgedMoses, forbidding him toenter the land of promisebecause   of disobedience (in striking the rock when told to speak to it) he failed to 'sanctify the Lord in his heart' before   the peopleOn Fri, 25 Nov 2005
 10:01:46 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: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 righteous (a cinfirmation to those who are already
 "saved") Ro 3:10,   thatour sepaation from God's glory is stated in the context of sin Ro 3:23,   that there is none good but the Father, that we are evil (yet know how to do good),   that the personal struggle betweenflesh and the Spirit is a continuing circumstance (Rom 7:14-25 --   there is simply no reasonto argue that our sanctification isan uncompleted task in view of Heb 10:14.   Do you see some "evil" in this opinion?   Your house illustration has appeal only because the home owner in your illustration thinks his
 housewas complete when, looking back in time, it clearly was not.   If the home owner views his home as something that does not yet meet his needs,   if he is aware of the failings of the home, he will not think it is a completed task. Jd  From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netcd: From the prospective of a home builder I can relate to this diagram of salvation and as most of the parables were directed toward the common man who builds (and hid from those wise in their own eyes) this would not be acting outside of God's biblical perimeters. If I one builds a house with great care making every cut and load bearing wall to its proper standards then when this
 house is finished it is complete/or perfect by those standards-as Christ has completed His house (ie The Church). Yet one can also allow for that house to receive additional room for future use( as the Family grows) and as each additional roomis added one can still call that same house complete/perfect for its purpose and use.Consider these terms of completeness and the rest falls into place.  JD: David -- I do not understand your logic here. If you admit that our sanctification is ongoing - how could you possibly argue that it is, at the same time, completed?"I am being made a better person" presents an action that is not completed and that appears to to be obvious, to me. Why is this not the case with "being sanctified?" Jd   
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] lory.orgBill wrote:   Per this verse, it is our sanctificationwhich is not yet complete.How do you read this into the text? Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow incomplete. Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is indicated by this text.Peace be with you.  David
 Miller.From: Taylor   Well actually, "by one offering" is a prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: "he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't expect you to be able to understandit.Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I don't expect you
 to understand that either. Bill  From: Kevin Deegan   The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com wrote:   I don't
 speculate on all that Bill because in my understanding the active part of sanctificationrequires the cooperation of the one being sanctified; the kind of cooperation an unbeliever would be unable to give.On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:11:28 -0700 "Taylor&quo

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

Chapter  verse?Or so say you? That settles it then!Hey if it is good enuff for JD, then its gotta be good enuff for you![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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] corrector/revisor  - Original Message -   From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou 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. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so
 . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd  cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to childrenThe CREED of the Alexandrian Cult  There is no final authority but God.Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen,
 heard, read, felt, or handled.Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error.There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where
 the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26).So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13).So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although
 not quite.The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used.But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach.
 or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.net wrote:   cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid
 it from the wiseand gave it to children-Point-What do the teachings of Gods words instructone to do-Then live by that-for you will be judged by that standard- if theheart is true to the intent of wanting truth-the proud will never see itanyway. [Original Message] From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG> Date: 11/24/2005 6:40:45 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

man-made translationWhat a great illustration of FAITH versus Doubt!Believers see through the eyes of FAITH.Unbelievers and Modernists see through the natural, w/o faith.  Besides if we can not come to agreement on what it really says, whether it is perfect, or even if we know where it might be available (originals),are we obliged to obey? Makes for a good excuse.Knowing as we do, thatwithout faith it is impossible to please God, we see the Word of God not as "man made" but as The HOLY Inerant Word from God Preserved for man that Man may DO it .And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes,
 to do themIf thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GODFor this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.  Besides nobody
 "DISGARDS" anything!  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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] corrector/revisor  - Original Message -   From:   To:
 TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou 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. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching
 me in my life. jd  cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-----From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  cd: This is really scary in
 leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to childrenThe CREED of the Alexandrian Cult  There is no final authority but God.Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error.There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary
 trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26).So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13).So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite.The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld,

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

so why such vehement opposition from your corner?Critical naturalism  modernism from which NATURALLY flow Infidelity  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Then childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs. It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: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] corrector/revisor  - Original Message -   From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou 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. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd  cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust
 invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the
 brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to childrenThe CREED of the Alexandrian Cult  There is no final authority but God.Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error.There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26).So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and
 philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13).So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite.The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used.But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS
 EARTH.Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.net wrote:   cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children-Point-What do the teachings of God

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

Just think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott  Hort to RESTORE the Original intent  text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs.  It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked   prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: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 cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  - Original Message -   From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou 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. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to
 mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd  cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and
 the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to childrenThe CREED of the Alexandrian Cult  There is no final authority but God.Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes
 error.There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26).So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13).So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite.The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used.But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY
 that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us li

Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore

[Kevin Deegan]

Well you knowDon't you?..  Wada you some kinda IDIOT or sumpin?Lance is so crooked he cant see a theif and he continualy leaves out his leaders name. Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  What "invective" filled language Lance?  Examples pleaseOn Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:36:37 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:AND I
 DARESAY Judy, that your invective-filled language on TT would equal or surpass that of John Calvin WITHOUT QUESTION!! (In all candor so would mine, Kevin's, Dean's, John's, and Linda's). The 'unnamed' regularly display a model of 'engagement' that we all might aspire to. From: Judy Taylor   Cd: 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean MooreOn Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:24:02 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Obviously spoken
 by someone who has never read the man.   Not one who has ever read 'The Insitute' would ever say such as this!   Borrow the 2 volume set, Dean. Prayerfully, give it a few hours. You may thereafter wish to apologize.Noone who has ever read Alice in Wonderland would ever say the Lewis Carroll  was a cocaine addict either.I daresay that right now Deanknows more of Christ than Calvin did when he wrote his  Institutes and isn'tChrist alonethe standard for His followers and is He not the same   yesterday, today, and forever - unchanged by time or culture?Calvin's actions were unbiblical in the extreme but were consistent with his theology  Isn't that fact reason enough to question Calvinism itself and to examine it carefully  from Scripture which is apparently what Dean has been doing already?I would say the advice above is obviously spoken by someone who has never  read Dean - Why not take your own advice Lance and you may thereafter wish  to apologize to him.   judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)  
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)  
		 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

cd: You said "both are sinners"-that is saying there is no difference.It depends of what the definition of "are" is!Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  - Original Message - From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/25/2005 12:01:41 PM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
 corrector/revisorI have never said this:You have said-There is no difference between the saved and the lost regarding sin.cd: You said "both are sinners"-that is saying there is no difference.-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:19:17 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  - Original Message -   From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/25/2005 11:01:40 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorIt is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)cd: Yet it would seem that these children on this site could teach you many things-Where has you MSS gotten you.You have said-There is no difference between the saved and the lost regarding sin.Yet the saved have the Holy Spirit teaching them how to avoid sin. This is pre-bible 101 stuff John.I feel sorry for the poor little weak Christians that don't know any better that that.-Original Message-From:
 Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  - Original Message -   From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou 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. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd  cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust
 invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-----Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to childrenThe CREED of the Alexandrian Cult  There is no final authority but God.Since God is a Spirit, there is no final
 authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error.There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing
 Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26).So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13).So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which
 are "almost the originals," although not quite.The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used.But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY
 that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

Chapter 30 Verse 5 Book Proverbs Every word of God is purePS 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.I do not toss the greek out, just the obviously CORRUPTED Alexandrian greek text.  The ones with deletions insertions corrections erasures.  One only needs 0to look on their face to SEE they have been tampered with.  No GREEK NEEDED for that.I do not accept checks with TEN different handwritings and crossed out words/numbers. Such a check is DISQUALFIED! Why should I use such MSS? Why would God use such MSS? He could not keep them pure? He
 needed some heretics to restore them by collating all the MSS  endlessly arguing what isthe real intent?This all streches credulity to the breaking point!  Ninety-five percent of all evidence SUPPORTS the text of the King James Authorized Version. The new versions are supported by the remaining five percent evidence, which disagrees within itself, thus it is a disqualified witness again.  Faith in the KJV is based on its unfailing performance for 400 years, others come and others go!Besides the KJV fits the scripture PS 12"PURIFIED Seven times"  1384 - John Wycliffe translates the whole Bible into English for
 the first time in history. The "Church" repays him by condemning him as a heritic.   1536 - William Tyndale burned as a heritic for his Bible translation work - the first printed English Scriptures.   1537 - Myles Coverdale's Bible translation published "with the king's most gracious licence." Later, during "Bloody Mary's reign, he is hunted for his life and forced to flee England.   1539 - Coverdale's "Great Bible" chained to the pulpits by order of King Henry VIII. Christians executed for reading the Bible without a licence.   1555 - John Rogers burned to death for publishing the Mathew Bible; becomes the first victim of
 "Bloody Mary," queen of England.   1560 - Queen Mary commands all "heretics" to return to Romanism or face the consequences. Many flee Geneva, and the exiled church leaders produce the Geneva Bible.   1611 - The seventh major English translation of the Scriptures, the King James Bible, is published and adopted as "The Authorized Version". [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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/revisorChapter 
 verse?Or so say you? That settles it then!Hey if it is good enuff for JD, then its gotta be good enuff for you![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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] corrector/revisor
  - Original Message -   From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou 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. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd  cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor 
 cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to
 go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to childrenThe CREED of the Alexandrian Cult  There is no final authority but God.Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error.There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

FAITH versus DOUBT that is what it is all about.  Even if you ignore the scriptures  the meat of the post.  It still speaks volumes.You take no issue with the claim that you Doubt, for obvious reasons.  No need to DO what God says since you can't find the original intent yet.  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorman-made translation 
   What a great illustration of FAITH versus Doubt!Believers see through the eyes of FAITH.Unbelievers and Modernists see through the natural, w/o faith.  Besides if we can not come to agreement on what it really says, whether it is perfect, or even if we know where it might be available (originals),are we obliged to obey? Makes for a good excuse.Knowing as we do, thatwithout faith it is impossible to please God, we see the Word of God not as "man made" but as The HOLY Inerant Word from God Preserved for man that Man may DO it .And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them 
   If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GODFor this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.  Besides nobody "DISGARDS"
 anything!  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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] corrector/revisor  - Original Message -   From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou 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. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd  cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-----Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus
 marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to childrenThe CREED of the Alexandrian Cult  There is no final authority but God.Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error.There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26).So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son
 OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Ge

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV?DUH!1384 - John Wycliffe translates the whole Bible into English for the first time in history. The "Church" repays him by condemning him as a heritic.   1536 - William Tyndale burned as a heritic for his Bible translation work - the first printed English Scriptures.   1537 - Myles Coverdale's Bible translation published "with the king's most gracious licence." Later, during "Bloody Mary's reign, he is hunted for his life and forced to flee England.
   1539 - Coverdale's "Great Bible" chained to the pulpits by order of King Henry VIII. Christians executed for reading the Bible without a licence.   1555 - John Rogers burned to death for publishing the Mathew Bible; becomes the first victim of "Bloody Mary," queen of England.   1560 - Queen Mary commands all "heretics" to return to Romanism or face the consequences. Many flee Geneva, and the exiled church leaders produce the Geneva Bible.   1611 - The seventh major English translation of the Scriptures, the King James Bible, is published and adopted as "The Authorized Version".   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And
 what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W  H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo:
 TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott  Hort to RESTORE the Original intent  text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs.  It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked   prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: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 cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor   
   - Original Message -   From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou 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. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd  cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original
 Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet 

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

As we see again you are ALL about DOUBT!  "yea hath God said"?  ?Where is The Infalible Word of God today JD?  Does not exist according to JD.Perhaps you think by asking questions that would take a large amount of documentation, you will accomplish one of two tasks?  1) I will be to busy to assemble such documentation and you will seem as a victor in your own mind.  2) The large amount of documentation is not going to be viewed and certainly not studied out like a good Berean. A christian must STUDY to be approved yet that is not popular in todays busy world. So there is a hope that even if I answer some may not read. As a side protection throw about 10 questions of such volume out at one time that is sure to do the trick!And yes the REVISORS Westcott  Hort were Occultists  Heretics 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did
 Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W  H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void.
 -Original Message-----From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott  Hort to RESTORE the Original intent  text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs.  It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked   prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: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 cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  - Original Message -   From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou 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. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd  cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will
 understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-----From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp
 them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to childrenThe CREED of the Alexandrian Cult  There is no final authority but God.S

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version?If this is your measure for truth, the go ahead throw out your new versions because they are the ones that come forth out of the Corrupt MSS that contained the Apocrypha!  The KJV Greek TEXTUS RECEPTUSdoes NOT contain the Apocrypha. BUT The oldest  best GREEK CODEX used for the new versions DOES CONTAIN the Apocrypha.The questionssome of youcome up with are unbelievable I must assume you are intent on setting up a Straw man attack since your ACCUSATIONS actually apply to the new versions rather than the KJV. You then attack the KJV based on the false inaplicable ACCUSATIONS. Of course it is possible that you have been duped
 and are horribly ignorant of the facts. These are the only 2 choices, ignorant or dishonest. Which is it?The Apocryphacame to us in Greek, as well as Latin but not in Scriptural Hebrew. They aredeuterocanonical, or second level and were included in the KJVfor historical reason - NOT AS Scripture.Everyone knows they were not accepted as scripture as you imply In fact the KJV Translators gave SEVEN REASONS for NOT including it as scripture!   The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old
 Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.Who would be so foolish to intersperse Greek  Latin text into the OT which came to us in Hebrew? If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction or inteligence of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the HEBREW Old Testament thus giving it authority AS Scripture. The Apocrypha is not part of the KJV bible anymore than the bible dictionary is, in the back of your bible! But it is part of the source documents for the New Versions![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And
 what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W  H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo:
 TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott  Hort to RESTORE the Original intent  text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs.  It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked   prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: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 cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor   
   - Original Message -   From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I re

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

NIV has 64,098 less words than the KJV, anything important?   "That which for nearly 1500 years was imposed on Christiandom as a book, of which every word was written under the direct supervision of the Holy Ghost: of which not one sylable nor a coma could be changed without sacrilege, is now being translated, revised and corrected and clipped of whole verses, in some cases of entire chapters" Occultist M Blavatsky ISIS Unveiled Volume 2, Theosophical Publishing pp 125, 252. NEW BIBLE ED's SIT IN JUDGEMENT OF GOD's WORD (Who is the Authority?)  "Certain verses that...have
 traditionally been thought have been part of Holy Writ, were in the judgement of the translators not present..." The NIV:The Making of a Contemporary Translation ED. Kenneth L. Barker, 1986 page 37 NEW BIBLE EDITORS ARE HERETICS   "This shows the great error that is so prevalent today in some orthodox protestants areas, namely the error that regeneration depends upon faith...in that in order to be born again man must first accept Jesus as Savior." Edwin Palmer (Chief Editor NIV) The Holy Spirit 1974 p 83 THE IDEA IS TO ADULTERATE THE THEOLOGY   "The changes thus far...are in the right directions...and should contain the germs of a new theology." (NASB editor) The Life of Schaff pp 427-428 "Certain words have gathered significance through the years and to change them might be to change doctrine...do the changes in meaning come from new evidence or simply new theology" Louis Foster, (NIV and NKJV committees) Selecting a Translation of the Bible pp 21, 76.   "The collusion is so low key that no one notices" M Ferguson The Aquarian Conspiracy (New Age).   "The Sacred Text has none to fear so much as those who feel rather than think" Dean John Burgon, The
 Revision Revised, page 109[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know
 full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W  H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan
 openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott  Hort to RESTORE the Original intent  text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs.  It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked   prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: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 cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  - Original Message -   From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou 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 -- 

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

Where was God's word before 1611?  How about; Wyclif's Bible 1384Tyndale 1535Coverdale's Bible 1535Great Bible Geneva Bible Bishops' Bible How About - Older versions:Syrian Peshetto of 157 AD Arabic, Persian, and Armenian versions Old Latin version 150 AD Other old Translations carried around the world, by missionaries  preachers. Extant Greek manuscripts The Old Testament preserved by the Jews. Romans 3:2 unto them were committed the oracles of God.  The Jewish cannon is devided into Law, prophets, psalms or Torah, Nebiim, Kethubhim.Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.The Jewish cannon starts with Blood of Abel, ends with the blood of Zacharias (Gen
 to Chronicles - Jewish order of books)Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.This matches the different order of books in the Jewish cannon, but they are the same 39 books as the KJV (NO APOCRYPHAL BOOKS)!!!  It is well known that the Jews took religious and meticulous care in their transcription.The scribes were very diligent and if but a single page was marred the whole was to be cast upon the scrap heap.John Owen said "The Jews have a common saying among them - that ‘to alter one letter of the Law,is no less sin than to set the whole World on fire, and shall we think that in writing it they took no more care than a man would do in writing out Aristotle or Plato" Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures Vol. XVI, P. 356  The naturalist Modernistic critics would be
 wise to study this saying!  Rabbi Moses, Tractatus de Libro Legis,chapter X. Lists 20 things that profane a copy. One of them is...‘If but one letter be wanting’; and another, ‘If but one letter be redundant’...Owens said "Jewish scribes and copyists would never have dared to insert vowels not in the originals or ancient copies thereof!"  Not so whoever messed with Aleph  B! They disfigured its face.Compare the statements of the scribes reverence and atitude  see if they square with the content and character of the grossly misfigured and CORRUPT Aleph  B Mss. http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/note1512.html  Now I leave you with a question.  What about those before the Time of Moses who gave us the Pentatuech?
 Where was God's word? Is God able to get his word to the pygmy in the farthest reaches?Hint:Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.What scripture existed during Abrahams time?Guess it depends on if you are a Bible believer or a Bible Doubter!If you believe there is a God who created the universe and the complexities of Life, but do not think God can get His word to man, or preserve His word in a book without error, (YE OLDE BIBLE is just written by men argumente) You need your head examined!Matthew 9:5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?  How BIG is your God?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant
 version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W  H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void.
 -----Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott  Hort to RESTORE the Original intent  text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I spoke of a single
 edition, not a single-man made edition. I don't care how many translatedit, and neither d

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

 of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th or 7th century.(Would your bank accept a check with 10 different signatures?) One very curious note is found on page 1512 it seems to complain about a change to the text of Hebrews 1:3 "Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!"  The critic Phillip Mauro said "From these facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose."   "It must be confessed, indeed, that the Codex Sinaiticus abounds with similar errors of the eye and pen, to an extent not
 unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance; so that Tregelles has freely pronounced that "the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as very rough" (N.T. Part ii p.2). Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled: while that gross blunder technically known as Homoeoteleuton, whereby a clause is as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the N.T., though the defect is often supplied by a more recent hand." (A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New Testament by F.H. Scrivener Page 15 Introduction)These TWO Mss. are at varience with one another, they disagree amongst themselves over 2000 times in the gospels alone!The Word of God disqualifies this kind of disagreeing witnesses Mark 14:55 -59 
 It is more like Satans witnesses  A good example of the corruption of the Bible CORRECTORS is Mark 16 where both Vaticanus  Sinaiticus leave out the last 12 verses. There are 620 extant Mss. that contain this section Mark 16. NO OTHER Mss. leave this out! The evidence is 618 to 2 for the section telling about the ressurection of Jesus. Yet, these 2 corruptions that are called the "Oldest  Best Manuscripts" end with Jesus in the grave  the disciples Fearing. In defiance of the combined 618 witnesses we are to put our trust in 2 horribly misfigured Mss. "covered all over with blots" as Burgeon has stated. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W  H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott  Hort to RESTORE the Original intent  text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs.  It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked   prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: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 cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:4

RE: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy

[Kevin Deegan]

Why? Jjust because it is really the Street Preachers fault?  Maybe DH was angry. Of course he equates SP in front of the Temple as Obnoxius etc blah blah blah. But he WILL not list just what exactly is so OBNOXIOUS about it. anyway SP 's at the Temple have nothing to do with his off color Humor [sic]It is all about offense not right  wrong. it is only wrong if you can find someone to be offended by it. Right?It seems DH is saying it is OK to talk about his bedroom if it is done in jest.Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  A totally arrogant and insensitive reply, in my opinion.From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the ControversyDate: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:52:53 -0800*And I apologize to all, especially to DaveH for provoking him. *DAVEH: Thank you for your apology, Izzy.But, as I'm sure you already know.it is not necessary to apologize to me. (Though the thought and consideration is most appreciated.) I had taken absolutely no offense at all in what you had posted. AndI suspect that you took no offense at what I posted in reply. (If I am wrong about that, let me know and I'll offer a sincere apology.) As for other TTers being offended.that rather surprises me. As Perry correctly surmised, my comments were all done in a
 humorous tone./While I am sure Dave is joking,/.that was not intended to offend anybody. (I am mystified as to why anybody would take personal offense at such humor anyway.) I was merely trying to keep the conversation at the same level as those responding, while trying to make a point at the same time. That point is that many TTers seem to have a double standard. On TT it is OK to publicly discuss and mock personal things (whether they be religious ceremonies, religious clothing or even sexual practices) of somebody who has a presumed inferior (from the majorities perspective) belief or position in life. Some TTers even brag about their right to publicly ridicule and demean Mormons' beliefs and practices, right at the doorstep of LDS religious gatherings. And what further and truly amazes me, some TTers support their obnoxious actions, regardless of how offensive they
 are to other people. Sureit is legal for them to do that, but IF LDS people find their tactics and behavior offensive, do those practicing such tactics and behavior ever back off in deference to the LDS folks' feelings??? So.when I publicly post some (what I consider, and I suspect a few others will agree to be) entertaining material in TT in reply to questions that were I to directly answer would undoubtedly bring ridicule and derision, then why would anybody be offended? Did I attack anybody? If not, then I did not violate any ad-hom rules?.none! Were my posts distasteful?.No more than those who asked the questions, IMO and also in the opinion of some TTers without an ax to grind. I do not recall using any foul language, or obnoxious (shouting) mannerisms. I merely tried to respond politely, humorously and in kind to each post that was made about the
 discussion. YesI did try to /drag in/---as Perry put it in a private post---others to illustrate the absurdity of what was being discussed. Until your own ox is being gored, there is little motivation for some to get excited! :-) Yet is is apparent that a couple TTers have fairly thin skins and took offense at my comments related to them. If street preachers truly are unable to discern humorous content, and have so little latitude for the rights of others to use free speech that is not even lewd.then how do they tolerate truly ugly behavior? It simply amazes me that some street preachers demand the right to be obnoxious and irritate others without regards to offending them, and then feign offense when somebody treats them far more respectfully in TT. (And in fairness to the street preachers on TTI realize that not all have complained about what I have posted
 here.thank you for your tolerancemy comments are not directed toward you.) Soo (excepting Izzy)for those TTers who claimed offense and continue to believe/*Dave owes an apology to all of us,*/..because of what I directly said to or about them.I view you as being big hypocritical *cry-babies*.a term that was once used in TT to describe me, but seems much more applicable to some TTers who *whine* all the time about how offensive I am. Buck-up folks. Most of you are adults, and if you can't tolerate a Mormon boy's playful and tame comments that were made in an effort to diffuse a potentially unpleasant subject, you're going to have big time trouble in the real world. In reviewing all the posts that came in today about this, I fail to see anything I said that would have directly or even indirectly
 attacked or offended anybody. If you disagree, feel free to either post on TT your reasons for disagreeing, or 

RE: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy

[Kevin Deegan]

Why? Jjust because it is really the Street Preachers fault?  Maybe DH was angry. Of course he equates SP in front of the Temple as Obnoxius etc blah blah blah. But he WILL not list just what exactly is so OBNOXIOUS about it. anyway SP 's at the Temple have nothing to do with his off color Humor [sic]It is all about offense not right  wrong. it is only wrong if you can find someone to be offended by it. Right?It seems DH is saying it is OK to talk about his bedroom if it is done in jest.Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  A totally arrogant and insensitive reply, in my opinion.From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the ControversyDate: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:52:53 -0800*And I apologize to all, especially to DaveH for provoking him. *DAVEH: Thank you for your apology, Izzy.But, as I'm sure you already know.it is not necessary to apologize to me. (Though the thought and consideration is most appreciated.) I had taken absolutely no offense at all in what you had posted. AndI suspect that you took no offense at what I posted in reply. (If I am wrong about that, let me know and I'll offer a sincere apology.) As for other TTers being offended.that rather surprises me. As Perry correctly surmised, my comments were all done in a
 humorous tone./While I am sure Dave is joking,/.that was not intended to offend anybody. (I am mystified as to why anybody would take personal offense at such humor anyway.) I was merely trying to keep the conversation at the same level as those responding, while trying to make a point at the same time. That point is that many TTers seem to have a double standard. On TT it is OK to publicly discuss and mock personal things (whether they be religious ceremonies, religious clothing or even sexual practices) of somebody who has a presumed inferior (from the majorities perspective) belief or position in life. Some TTers even brag about their right to publicly ridicule and demean Mormons' beliefs and practices, right at the doorstep of LDS religious gatherings. And what further and truly amazes me, some TTers support their obnoxious actions, regardless of how offensive they
 are to other people. Sureit is legal for them to do that, but IF LDS people find their tactics and behavior offensive, do those practicing such tactics and behavior ever back off in deference to the LDS folks' feelings??? So.when I publicly post some (what I consider, and I suspect a few others will agree to be) entertaining material in TT in reply to questions that were I to directly answer would undoubtedly bring ridicule and derision, then why would anybody be offended? Did I attack anybody? If not, then I did not violate any ad-hom rules?.none! Were my posts distasteful?.No more than those who asked the questions, IMO and also in the opinion of some TTers without an ax to grind. I do not recall using any foul language, or obnoxious (shouting) mannerisms. I merely tried to respond politely, humorously and in kind to each post that was made about the
 discussion. YesI did try to /drag in/---as Perry put it in a private post---others to illustrate the absurdity of what was being discussed. Until your own ox is being gored, there is little motivation for some to get excited! :-) Yet is is apparent that a couple TTers have fairly thin skins and took offense at my comments related to them. If street preachers truly are unable to discern humorous content, and have so little latitude for the rights of others to use free speech that is not even lewd.then how do they tolerate truly ugly behavior? It simply amazes me that some street preachers demand the right to be obnoxious and irritate others without regards to offending them, and then feign offense when somebody treats them far more respectfully in TT. (And in fairness to the street preachers on TTI realize that not all have complained about what I have posted
 here.thank you for your tolerancemy comments are not directed toward you.) Soo (excepting Izzy)for those TTers who claimed offense and continue to believe/*Dave owes an apology to all of us,*/..because of what I directly said to or about them.I view you as being big hypocritical *cry-babies*.a term that was once used in TT to describe me, but seems much more applicable to some TTers who *whine* all the time about how offensive I am. Buck-up folks. Most of you are adults, and if you can't tolerate a Mormon boy's playful and tame comments that were made in an effort to diffuse a potentially unpleasant subject, you're going to have big time trouble in the real world. In reviewing all the posts that came in today about this, I fail to see anything I said that would have directly or even indirectly
 attacked or offended anybody. If you disagree, feel free to either post on TT your reasons for disagreeing, or 

Re: [TruthTalk] Charles Perry Lock says 'A totally arrogant and insensitive reply, IMO' of Dave Hansen

[Kevin Deegan]

Hey its the SPs fault  Perry is to blame too now!  Turn it upside down why don't you?  And you got upset about Bible Perverts?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  I have a sense of DaveH that he ain't got it in 'em but, should anyone's door need showin' up at ...well...it's pretty obvious to me who they'd be. He's been spoken to and aboutwith ill intent pretty much daily. As Tom Snyder used to say of people who behave like you guys have..'go to a mirror, look into it and, call yourself...(guess)IMO Perry, you're doing this more because he's a Mormon than because of what he purportedly meant by what he
 said.Iz rather graciously acknowledged her own participation and, requested that you let this go. Why not do that, Perry?  
		 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?

[Kevin Deegan]

I do not understand your outrage.Think of it as, mayI quote You? "filthy" "Ghetto Speak"  Why the outrage then  none now?  Whats up? can't discern Carnal from Holy?  is it time to grow up now JD?And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.  Were ALL sinners anyhow in your theology right? NO DIFFERENC!anyone can see the double standards around here. It is Deans fault, right?He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the
 LORD.  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 did try to take the matter to a private discussion -- well I cannot stop you. But you are not going to beat up anyone, period, so stop the "I'm a
 righteous tough guy " garbage. That's all I am saying. Jd-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:56:57 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?  - Original Message -   From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/25/2005 11:31:30 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?Her posted apology was not in existence when you and I wrote our individual comments.The conversation was out of place, but DH is certainly no more at fault than Linda. He went no further into the gutter than Linda. But Linda hasdone her best to bring this to an end. Just understand one thing -- it ismy suggestion that the tough guy crap has no place here. It appeals to the
 old man side of life and, ifcontinued, will change al of things in regard to this forum, as far as I am concerned.  Enough said.jd  cd: As I said before John nobody will speak in that manner to my wife and if I wasn't thereI would hope that somebody else would defend my wife. I meant what I said-I can serve God and still protect my family. If me protecting my family changes this forum then it would be to the better. The first one here that speaks to my wife in a similar manner will have me to fight.I will not give Satans minions free reign over my family.No where in the Bible am I told to turn her cheek only my own
 which I have done many times as the Lord has helped me to do. Notice there are no smiley faces in this reply.-Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke cpl2602@hotmail.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent : Fri, 25 Nov 2005 08:06:37 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?  John, Izzy opened the door, and has realized that and apologized for it (maybe you missed that post). It was DH that walked through that door and took it to the gutter.PerryFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:50:46 -0500Hey tough guy, it was Linda Shields who open the door to this thread -- not DH.-Original Message-From: De an Moore
 cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:01:31 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?- Original Message -From: Lance MuirTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 11/25/2005 8:31:48 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?Ah and, we wonder over violence in society! Thanks for the illustration, Dean.cd; There are some things t h at one is just to fight over-My family was places under my care and protection-by God. It is my duty to do so even against those who have no decent icy or morals to speak to another man wife as a whore.- Original Message -From: Dean MooreTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: November 25, 2005 08:21Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Se xual Experiences-Charles?cd: You are speaking to the wife of another man-try that with mine and I will be on your door step in a couple of days-go ahead and ask her she will be reading your next response!- Original Message -From: DaveTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 11 /24/2005 11:30:35 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?RE: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual ExperiencesDAVEH : Do you suppose CPL will know anything about them, Dean!?!?!?!  ;-)Dean Moore wrote:cd: Where is our monitor? Charles?Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual ExperiencesHardly. JFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of DaveSent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 12:16
 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual ExperiencesYou know I'll tell!DAVEH: Wow Izzy..I am rather surprised to hear you say that! But it is nice to know you are not so 

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

Your argument falls on deaf ears. The ears ofthe vast majority of Greek scholars, who totally disagree with you. What makes your Private Interpretation better than theirs? Becuase it is yours?Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Dean writes  Yet us ignorant people gave the meaning of the present and future tense of the word sanctified as Christ taught in the bible the first time out.   No, Dean, you did not. And if you do now, it is only because you have been through the process of the last four days. The truth is, the first time out you interpreted my words as an invitation to debate your Wesleyan
 theology, obviously having previously missed the present passive aspect of this participle. As for some of your homies: Judy's first response was to accuse me of introducing an idea into the text which "is not there," and of having "madea straw man to knock down"; and Kevin's was to accuseme of making"the text wrong"; he then went on a two daysnipe hunt,looking fora passive "being" in the Greek text. And he would still be out there, were it not for David calling him in. Is this how you guysget it the first time out?I presented my concernabout the KJ translation as this,that it was prone to leading English readers into confusion: 'A cursory reading of this verse may leave one with the impression that the "perfected"are thosewhose sanctification is complete: they are, after all, "sanctified,"
 aren't they?'To which David's response was "How can you be so dogmatic about them being mistaken? What convinces you that they are wrong to translate as are sanctified?"The problem with this translation is thatit is ambiguous and hence easily misunderstood. Notice what Kevin says in return: "The action is past tense. So what is the problem?" The problem is the action is present tense and progressive -- it is the participial adjective that is in a past tense form. Moreover, the problem is that Kevin unwittingly demonstrates my very concern, even if you and he and everyone else is unwilling to admit it. But that is only the beginning. Kevin boasts that, "God gave the Word he gave us the Holy Spirit and as Dean points out some were able to GET IT, right out of the gate! When are the rest going to getIN the race?" Let's look at how "the Word" and
 "the Holy Spirit" have helped Kevin "GET IT." While criticizing me for adding "being" to my translation, he writes,  Perhaps these? Should we insert "Being" sanctified? if not these there must be some other evidence for the ONGOING EVENT of sanctification.And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our'sFor both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of oneHB 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the
 offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for allJUDE 1:1 to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ  Seems they are all present tense must be a KJV thingy. (emphasis my own)  Yeah, you better believe it is a KJV thingy. The problem is, only one of these "are sanctified" phrases in Kevin's list of six is actually in thepresent tense; the rest are perfect tense and speak to acompleted past with lingering effects. Would you mind venturing a guess as to which one it is?David claims thatthis type ofKJV shorthand is not a problem;he can tell by context when a perfect tense is being implied. Perhaps he can. What big deal is that? He's studied the Greek. My question to you is, why can't you tell the difference? Why isn't Kevin able to tell
 which one of these is in the present tense, and why can't he tell that the other five are perfects? He's got God'sWord and Holy Spirit to guide him. Izzy doesn't know how right she is: "If only the scribes and Pharisees can understand God's Word, and we must depend upon their interpretations, we are in big trouble. Fortunately this is not the case." She's right: there are plenty ofpeople who can help you, if you will but let them.  Your recommendation "is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek." Well tell me then, with an understanding like that, which of Kevin's present tenses is actually a present tense?Did you agreewith him that this "is exactly the road we travel on when we enter into the greek game. Endless arguments about the sense of 'being' versus the nuaances of 'having been'"?If you did, then get in the race: I challenge any
 of you to tell me the answer without firstgoing to the Greek. Tell me, Kevin, are you willing to"make your stand, withoutany scripture to back up your Philosophy"? If not, thenpunch inthe Greekand notice the tense 

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

BTW whan you and DM resolve the issue let us know.  Are you getting closer?Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Dean writes  Yet us ignorant people gave the meaning of the present and future tense of the word sanctified as Christ taught in the bible the first time out.   No, Dean, you did not. And if you do now, it is only because you have been through the process of the last four days. The truth is, the first time out you interpreted my words as an invitation to debate your Wesleyan theology, obviously having previously missed the present passive aspect of this participle. As for some of your
 homies: Judy's first response was to accuse me of introducing an idea into the text which "is not there," and of having "madea straw man to knock down"; and Kevin's was to accuseme of making"the text wrong"; he then went on a two daysnipe hunt,looking fora passive "being" in the Greek text. And he would still be out there, were it not for David calling him in. Is this how you guysget it the first time out?I presented my concernabout the KJ translation as this,that it was prone to leading English readers into confusion: 'A cursory reading of this verse may leave one with the impression that the "perfected"are thosewhose sanctification is complete: they are, after all, "sanctified," aren't they?'To which David's response was "How can you be so dogmatic about them being mistaken? What
 convinces you that they are wrong to translate as are sanctified?"The problem with this translation is thatit is ambiguous and hence easily misunderstood. Notice what Kevin says in return: "The action is past tense. So what is the problem?" The problem is the action is present tense and progressive -- it is the participial adjective that is in a past tense form. Moreover, the problem is that Kevin unwittingly demonstrates my very concern, even if you and he and everyone else is unwilling to admit it. But that is only the beginning. Kevin boasts that, "God gave the Word he gave us the Holy Spirit and as Dean points out some were able to GET IT, right out of the gate! When are the rest going to getIN the race?" Let's look at how "the Word" and "the Holy Spirit" have helped Kevin "GET IT." While criticizing me for adding "being" to my translation, he
 writes,  Perhaps these? Should we insert "Being" sanctified? if not these there must be some other evidence for the ONGOING EVENT of sanctification.And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our'sFor both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of oneHB 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for allJUDE 1:1 to them that
 are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ  Seems they are all present tense must be a KJV thingy. (emphasis my own)  Yeah, you better believe it is a KJV thingy. The problem is, only one of these "are sanctified" phrases in Kevin's list of six is actually in thepresent tense; the rest are perfect tense and speak to acompleted past with lingering effects. Would you mind venturing a guess as to which one it is?David claims thatthis type ofKJV shorthand is not a problem;he can tell by context when a perfect tense is being implied. Perhaps he can. What big deal is that? He's studied the Greek. My question to you is, why can't you tell the difference? Why isn't Kevin able to tell which one of these is in the present tense, and why can't he tell that the other five are perfects? He's got
 God'sWord and Holy Spirit to guide him. Izzy doesn't know how right she is: "If only the scribes and Pharisees can understand God's Word, and we must depend upon their interpretations, we are in big trouble. Fortunately this is not the case." She's right: there are plenty ofpeople who can help you, if you will but let them.  Your recommendation "is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek." Well tell me then, with an understanding like that, which of Kevin's present tenses is actually a present tense?Did you agreewith him that this "is exactly the road we travel on when we enter into the greek game. Endless arguments about the sense of 'being' versus the nuaances of 'having been'"?If you did, then get in the race: I challenge any of you to tell me the answer without firstgoing to the Greek. Tell me, Kevin, are you willing
 to"make your stand, withoutany scripture to back up your Philosophy"? If not, thenpunch inthe Greekand notice the tense results. Judy claimed that I and my "Gk Dictionary cohorts are putting [ourselves] into a very definite 

Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore

[Kevin Deegan]

For those of us who geniuinely have difficulty in understanding your point. Does IDIOT qualify. You do not have to answer, (as if you would - someone has a blind spot) we already know.Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:What "invective" filled language Lance?  Examples pleaseOh the ignorance of those who don't see things the way you do again Lance along with the fact that you are unable or unwilling to produce an example of invective filled language coming from me.   Let's see
 "INVECTIVE"Okay, more below:Hmmm - Just as I thought, the Holy Spirit has been fired and men have taken over; men who exalt Greek present passive verbs..  OK Kevin God has spoken ... so now forever hold your peace.[I]t's not easy to try and sort out what Bill is sayinghere with Plato sitting in the RH cornerAmazing how the devil jumps in
 and shuts it down just when it starts getting good isn't it??Thank you for being a friend,Bill- Original Message -   From: Judy Taylor   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 10:11 AM  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean MooreOh the ignorance of those who don't see things the way you do again Lance along with the fact that you are unable or  unwilling to produce an example of invective filled language coming from me. Let's see "INVECTIVE"Noah Webster 1828 - Invective Noun  A railing speech or _expression_; something uttered or written intended to cast opprobrium, censure or reproach on another; a harsh or reproachful accusation. It differs from reproof as the latter may come from a friend and be intended for
 the good of the person reproved; but invective proceeds from an enemy, and is intended to give pain or to injure. Is followed by against ie: He uttered severe invectives against the unfortunate general.  Adjective: Satirical, abusive, railing  No Lance, it is not my ignorance it is your lack of understanding. You feed on SNL, Bono, Dylan etc. andthe fruit of it is an inability to discern a friend from an enemy. I'm really sorry about that.  On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:57:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I've always thought you unaware of the hurt (read 'invective-filled language) you do to others through your speach, Judy. I
 stand by that. However, this doesn't mean you don't do it. It just means that you don't know you're doing it, IMO.From: Judy Taylor What "invective" filled language Lance?  Examples pleaseOn Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:36:37 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:AND I DARESAY Judy, that your invective-filled language on TT would equal or surpass that of John Calvin WITHOUT QUESTION!! (In all
 candor so would mine, Kevin's, Dean's, John's, and Linda's). The 'unnamed' regularly display a model of 'engagement' that we all might aspire to. From: Judy Taylor   Cd: 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean MooreOn Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:24:02 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Obviously spoken by someone who has never read the man.   Not one who has ever read 'The Insitute' would ever
 say such as this!   Borrow the 2 volume set, Dean. Prayerfully, give it a few hours. You may thereafter wish to apologize.Noone who has ever read Alice in Wonderland would ever say the Lewis Carroll  was a cocaine addict either.I daresay that right now Deanknows more of Christ than Calvin did when he wrote his  Institutes and isn'tChrist alonethe standard for His followers and is He not the same   yesterday, today, and forever - unchanged by time or culture?Calvin's actions were unbiblical in the extreme but were consistent with his
 theology  Isn't that fact reason enough to question Calvinism itself and to examine it carefully  from Scripture which is apparently what Dean has been doing already?I would say the advice above is obviously spoken by someone who has never  read Dean - Why not take your own advice Lance and you may thereafter wish  to apologize to him.  
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)  
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)  
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
		 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] Lance Mur says: I have a sense of DaveH that he ain't got it in 'em

[Kevin Deegan]

I find it a rule that Perverts are generally not bothered by sexual inuendo and crass sexual comments.There is only one thing worse than a pervert. It is one who justifies the sin the sinner. I will preach to a pervert, but those who justify the sin are reprobates and beyond help. God calls them an abominationCharles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Lance, the principle I was taught is that when you offend someone you apologize...even if you didn't mean to, even if you were joking, even if you think they are faking offense, apologizing is the right thing to do. Izzy got it. Kevin got it. Evidently arrogant people don't get it.While I have railed heavily against Dave's faith, I have not generally maligned the man. But, having been
 given this door of opportunity, let me say how I really feel...It is not that Dave is a mormon. That is an unfortunate coincidence. It is that he has behaved arrogantly. It is that has insulted most all on this forum by arrogantly stating that "he is not here to learn the truth, he is here to learn what protestants believe". It is that he has said he is here to learn, but after being told over and over, he fails to learn. It is that he has said he is not here to teach, then has proselytized us with his satan inspired faith. It is that he levies his often tasteless humor on others, but when they have been offended, he has rationalized his behavior, while belittling the offended. He has taken the words of others and intentionally twisted them to mean something else, then posted them. When claims are made about his behavior, his memory is bad, but when he wants to make claims against others, his memory is restored.And, it
 was HE who changed the subject line of the posts in question to "Izzies Sexual Experiences". He is the one who twisted Dean's call for moderation, to suggesting that I might know something of Izzies sexual experiences. HE is the one with the perverse mind. HE is the one who does not know where to draw the line on his so-called humor. And HIS response is an arrogant rationalaztion that it is okay for him to say these things, and for us to be opffended? Back off, Elder Muir!PerryFrom: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: Subject: [TruthTalk] Charles Perry Lock says 'A totally arrogant and insensitive reply, IMO' of Dave HansenDate: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:53:48 -0500I have a sense of DaveH that he ain't got it in 'em but, should anyone's door need showin' up at ...well...it's pretty obvious to me who they'd be.
 He's been spoken to and about with ill intent pretty much daily. As Tom Snyder used to say of people who behave like you guys have..'go to a mirror, look into it and, call yourself...(guess)IMO Perry, you're doing this more because he's a Mormon than because of what he purportedly meant by what he said.Iz rather graciously acknowledged her own participation and, requested that you let this go. Why not do that, Perry?--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.  
		 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore

[Kevin Deegan]

Pay attention in class.  Where have you been?  AMAZING  \()/ asleep at the wheelTaylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Ad homs aside, Kevin: who called whom an idiot?- Original Message -   From: Kevin Deegan   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
   Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 7:37 PM  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean MooreFor those of us who geniuinely have difficulty in understanding your point. Does IDIOT qualify. You do not have to answer, (as if you would - someone has a blind spot) we already know.Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What "invective" filled language Lance?  Examples please   
 Oh the ignorance of those who don't see things the way you do again Lance along with the fact that you are unable or unwilling to produce an example of invective filled language coming from me.   Let's see "INVECTIVE"Okay, more below:Hmmm - Just as I thought, the Holy Spirit has been fired and men have taken over; men who exalt Greek present passive verbs..  OK Kevin God has spoken ... so now forever hold your peace.   
 [I]t's not easy to try and sort out what Bill is sayinghere with Plato sitting in the RH cornerAmazing how the devil jumps in and shuts it down just when it starts getting good isn't it??Thank you for being a friend,Bill- Original Message -   From: Judy Taylor   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 10:11 AM  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean MooreOh the ignorance of those who don't see things the way you do again Lance along with the fact that you are unable or  unwilling to produce an example of invective filled language coming from me. Let's see "INVECTIVE"Noah Webster 1828 - Invective Noun  A railing speech or _expression_;
 something uttered or written intended to cast opprobrium, censure or reproach on another; a harsh or reproachful accusation. It differs from reproof as the latter may come from a friend and be intended for the good of the person reproved; but invective proceeds from an enemy, and is intended to give pain or to injure. Is followed by against ie: He uttered severe invectives against the unfortunate general..  Adjective: Satirical, abusive, railing  No Lance, it is not my ignorance it is your lack of understanding. You feed on SNL, Bono, Dylan etc. andthe fruit of it is an inability to discern a friend from an enemy. I'm really sorry about that.  On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:57:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I've always thought you unaware of the hurt (read 'invective-filled language) you do to others through your speach, Judy. I stand by that. However, this doesn't mean you don't do it. It just means that you don't know you're doing it, IMO.From: Judy Taylor What "invective" filled language Lance?  Examples pleaseOn Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:36:37 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:AND I DARESAY Judy, that your invective-filled language on TT would equal or surpass that of John Calvin WITHOUT QUESTION!! (In all candor so would mine, Kevin's, Dean's, John's, and Linda's). The 'unnamed' regularly display a model of 'engagement' that we all might aspire to. From: Judy Taylor   Cd: 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean MooreOn Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:24:02 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Obviously spoken by someone who has never read the man.   Not one who has ever read 'The Insitute' would ever say such as this!   Borrow the 2 volume set, Dean. Prayerfully, give it a few hours. You may thereafter wish to apologize.Noone who has ever read Alice in Wonderland would ever say the Lewis Carroll  was a cocaine addict either.I daresay that right now Deanknows more of Christ than Calvin did when he wrote his  Institutes and isn'tChrist alonethe standard for His followers and is He not the same   yesterday, today, and forever - unchanged by time or culture?Calvin's actions were unbiblical in the extreme but were consistent with his theology  Isn't that fact reason enough to question Calvinism itself and to examine it carefully  from Scripture which is apparently what Dean has been doing already?I would say the advice above is obviously spoken by someone who has never  read Dean - Why not take your own advice Lance and you may thereafter wish  to apologize to him. 
  judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) 
  judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) 
  judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)  Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try
 it free.  
		 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

So what purification process did your Depraved greek text go thru?  By the looks of the MSS it did not work they are anything but pure!  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 the KJV was a revision -- so you could comeup with your mythological "7."  
   The readers will need to refer to the post just previous to this one for that list. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:46:28 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorFAITH versus DOUBT that is what it is all about.  Even if you ignore the scriptures  the meat of the post.  It still speaks volumes.You take no issue with the claim that you Doubt, for obvious reasons.  No need to DO what God says since you can't find the original intent yet.  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

Read the other post... duh[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 13:49:02 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorWhat was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV?DUH!1384 - John Wycliffe
 translates the whole Bible into English for the first time in history. The "Church" repays him by condemning him as a heritic.   1536 - William Tyndale burned as a heritic for his Bible translation work - the first printed English Scriptures.   1537 - Myles Coverdale's Bible translation published "with the king's most gracious licence." Later, during "Bloody Mary's reign, he is hunted for his life and forced to flee England.   1539 - Coverdale's "Great Bible" chained to the pulpits by order of King Henry VIII. Christians executed for reading the Bible without a licence.   1555 - John Rogers burned to death for publishing the Mathew Bible; becomes the first victim of "Bloody Mary,"
 queen of England.   1560 - Queen Mary commands all "heretics" to return to Romanism or face the consequences. Many flee Geneva, and the exiled church leaders produce the Geneva Bible.   1611 - The seventh major English translation of the Scriptures, the King James Bible, is published and adopted as "The Authorized Version".   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W  H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about
 them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott  Hort to RESTORE the Original intent  text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs.  It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked   prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: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 cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  - Original Message -   From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou 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. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so .
 not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd  cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This typ

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[Kevin Deegan]

All the way back to the beginning. Read the other post... duhO I am sorry I forgot I have to bottle feed you.  You are so FULL of Doubt and false Dilemas!  And change your diapers  How About - Older versions:Syrian Peshetto of 157 AD Arabic, Persian, and Armenian versions Old Latin version 150 AD Other old Translations carried around the world, by missionaries  preachers. Extant Greek manuscripts The Old Testament preserved by the Jews. Romans 3:2 unto them were committed the oracles of God.O my O my what did they read before that?What scripture did Paroah
 read?  Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Read the other post... duh[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 13:49:02 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorWhat was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV?DUH!1384 - John Wycliffe translates the whole Bible into English for the first time in history. The "Church" repays him by condemning him as a heritic.   1536 - William Tyndale burned as a heritic for his Bible translation work - the first printed English Scriptures.   1537 - Myles Coverdale's Bible translation published "with the king's most gracious licence." Later, during "Bloody Mary's reign, he is hunted for his life and forced to flee England.   1539 - Coverdale's "Great Bible" chained to the pulpits by order of King Henry VIII. Christians
 executed for reading the Bible without a licence.   1555 - John Rogers burned to death for publishing the Mathew Bible; becomes the first victim of "Bloody Mary," queen of England.   1560 - Queen Mary commands all "heretics" to return to Romanism or face the consequences. Many flee Geneva, and the exiled church leaders produce the Geneva Bible.   1611 - The seventh major English translation of the Scriptures, the King James Bible, is published and adopted as "The Authorized Version".   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W  H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott  Hort to RESTORE the Original intent  text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs.  It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked   prayerfully together - so why such
 vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: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 cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor  - Original Message -   From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org