On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 18:50:46 -0600 TimO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Barry Drake wrote:
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > OpenSword (if that is the current name) might be another way of
> > supporting open mindedness along with our own faith, and not
> being
> > quick to condemn fringes that we neither un
Barry Drake wrote:
>
[...]
> OpenSword (if that is the current name) might be another way of
> supporting open mindedness along with our own faith, and not being
> quick to condemn fringes that we neither understand nor agree with.
> Personally, I don't find Mormons a threat - and some of them
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Joe Walker
>
> Barry Drake wrote:
> > BTW - the JW's as far as I know split
> > from the Chistadelphians in the early days (am I right?)
>
> Umm. No.
> I don't know a lot of JW history, but I do know about
> Christadelphian history, and it doesn't feat
Barry Drake wrote:
> BTW - the JW's as far as I know split
> from the Chistadelphians in the early days (am I right?)
Umm. No.
I don't know a lot of JW history, but I do know about Christadelphian
history, and it doesn't feature JWs anywhere!
> Since I mentioned the Trinity - I'd like to sugges
I think both of these are very good statements of faith that we could
use. Or possibly we could examine the Apostle's Creed (according to the
typical Protestant translation that doesn't include "Hell" and writes
"catholic" with a lowercase c). I'm of the opinion that whatever we
decide upon shou
> But I think I've started a slightly "off topic" discussion on what ought
to
> be a mainly techie list. Can I apologise for that?
I think it is important to discuss/debate these issues as much as it is to
discuss/debate technical issues. We are the modern day scribe and as such
our discussions
Barry Drake wrote:
>
> BTW - the JW's as far as I know split
> from the Chistadelphians in the early days (am I right?) and they claim to
> be Bible Inerrancists too!
Don't know about Chistadelphians connection, but JWs say they believe
the Bible as long as it's translated properly. And of cour
Hi Martin and Joachim
On 19 Jul 2001, at 17:21, Martin Gruner wrote:
> the Bible is the first thing to agree on. I suggest to consider the Chicago
> Declaration of Bible Inerrancy (the first one of the 3 declarations).
It's precisely what *some* might mean by "Bible Inerrancy" that does
Hi there ...
On 19 Jul 2001, at 8:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Or we could have it as simple as Paul stated it in 1Corinthians 15:1-8
I rather like that.
Our URC statement of faith tries to keep it simple by saying that it
acknowledges the Bible "discerned under the guidance of the H
le Christians. The result
of the letter was much comfort - the Church was strengthened.
-John
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Martin Gruner
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 8:21 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:
> Another reason is perhaps a mormon (or
> others) will use Sword because we provide their specific translation and
> after careful study with all the tools provided find that they are in error
> and turn and are saved. God can use this I am sure.
Yes!
> Each denomination adds it's viewpoint to
> > One point: "We are working on a statement of faith". I find this a bit
> > worrying. In the short time I've been a module developer, I've talked
with
> > folk from all persuasions including a Christadelphian. I don't think we
> > could actually go any further than: "We believe in one God,
On 19 Jul 2001, at 17:21, Martin Gruner sent forth the message:
> There is something to it. But a line needs to be drawn. This line must be set
> by the Word of God and not by our subjective wishes. There are definitely
> "ways of faith" which stand against what God gave us as guide.
> So the B
> One point: "We are working on a statement of faith". I find this a bit
> worrying. In the short time I've been a module developer, I've talked with
> folk from all persuasions including a Christadelphian. I don't think we
> could actually go any further than: "We believe in one God, the God
Hi David
On 19 Jul 2001, at 7:59, David Overcash wrote:
> Here is what I don't understand, why do we support mormon texts? It is well
> known that they are a cult, what are we trying to do with this?
I was referring to the Joseph Smith text - we have it as a cult text on the
download
ot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:RE: [sword-devel] New Web Site
Here is what I don't understand, why do we support mormon texts? It is well
known that they are a cult, what are we trying to do with this?
-Dave
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PRO
ng a 'mild conversation' with
different people.
I like to see them in my software but maybe handled a bit differently.
Tom
-Original Message-
From: David Overcash [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 9:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [sword-devel] New Web S
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [sword-devel] New Web Site
Hi
Just back - so couldn't join in earlier. Wonderful job. I can see how
much more easily I could have got into Sword if I'd had this page to come
to instead of the old one. Congratulations!
One point: "We are wo
Hi
Just back - so couldn't join in earlier. Wonderful job. I can see how
much more easily I could have got into Sword if I'd had this page to come
to instead of the old one. Congratulations!
One point: "We are working on a statement of faith". I find this a bit
worrying. In the
19 matches
Mail list logo
