Re: [TruthTalk] What is sin?

[Lance Muir]

Another acquaintance (I got a million of 'em) of mine is listening to Stern's translation. I'd recommend it. ----- Original Message ----- From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 24, 2004 20:38 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] What is sin? D.Stern gave four example of how the passage can be interpreted. He said the fourth, in his opinion, was the correct one. Therefore, someone would be able to quote something from numbers 1, 2, or 3, and claim he wrote it... which he did... but it still is not his opinion. By doing so (or adding words to his mouth), one takes the information out of context in order to cement a preconceived notion.   Why would someone do that?   If it was an accident, that's one thing. If one does it on purpose, that's no better than the spinster politician.   Why would you use the writings of D.Stern and then state, "Whether this contradicts his statement in another part of the book is of no concern to me?"   -- slade -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 24 October, 2004 19.37 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] What is sin? In a message dated 10/24/2004 10:24:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you know what set me off? John    No.   slade Slade says:    Your last comment, "Whether this contradicts his statement in another part of the book is of no concern to me" is a typical response from someone with a hardened heart. You are looking for any proof whatsoever to justify your weak doctrine, and you're willing to take snippets of information out of their contextual format. Enjoy your blindness.