Post by stevenavery on Apr 16, 2013 10:06:07 GMT
Hi,
This post is addressed to the tag-team of Sankari and Fortigurn:
Oh, I forgot. Looking at all snide remarks and all your blunders and false statements on the Bible text issues, it is not a big deal, since you are really simply well-meaning delusional cranks who fabricate claims as convenient.
And since you have likely been misreading and misusing Metzger and the parrots for 20 years, you are not new at the game.
And you should not get upset, your being delusional is not a verbal twist of any kind, it is simply the facts. As shown even in the last post by your "shot down in flames" delusion. (Thinking of your obsession on the mini-tweak of how the Ron Wyatt contribution to the Exodus location question stands in a fair Biblical archaelogy perspective.)
==============
Why don't you simply acknowledge that you are largely clueless on Bible textual issues. Which is painfully obvious from your one attempt to pretend to know a bit to defend your put-down of Benjamin Wilkinson. That done, stop the incessant posturing and condescension attempts. (On the Bible text, I really suggest you should start with Burgon and Hills for awhile before you venture back into Bible textual discussion, and also go into textual forum discussion, such as on textualcriticism and TC-Alternate, with a listening ear).
And then, if you want a real discussion on the virgin birth theories including the sinless Messiah relationship to the virgin birth (Arthur Custance), the Ron Wyatt archaeology issues and the Shroud-blood questions, and other points of interest, I will be happy to be a participant. We can even do a full study on the Wilderness of Shur. (Noting that my own views on the shroud are largely questions anyway, especially in noting one issue and study largely missed.)
==============
And I actually brought some of these issues up on Quodlibeta thinking that it might offer a more sound forum for study and consideration than the general run of internet forums. Since I saw this improved level occurs up to a point on issues like discussion of the mythicism approach to Bible history. Apparently though, there are severe limitations.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven
This post is addressed to the tag-team of Sankari and Fortigurn:
There was no 'virulent verbiage.'.
Oh, I forgot. Looking at all snide remarks and all your blunders and false statements on the Bible text issues, it is not a big deal, since you are really simply well-meaning delusional cranks who fabricate claims as convenient.
And since you have likely been misreading and misusing Metzger and the parrots for 20 years, you are not new at the game.
And you should not get upset, your being delusional is not a verbal twist of any kind, it is simply the facts. As shown even in the last post by your "shot down in flames" delusion. (Thinking of your obsession on the mini-tweak of how the Ron Wyatt contribution to the Exodus location question stands in a fair Biblical archaelogy perspective.)
==============
Why don't you simply acknowledge that you are largely clueless on Bible textual issues. Which is painfully obvious from your one attempt to pretend to know a bit to defend your put-down of Benjamin Wilkinson. That done, stop the incessant posturing and condescension attempts. (On the Bible text, I really suggest you should start with Burgon and Hills for awhile before you venture back into Bible textual discussion, and also go into textual forum discussion, such as on textualcriticism and TC-Alternate, with a listening ear).
And then, if you want a real discussion on the virgin birth theories including the sinless Messiah relationship to the virgin birth (Arthur Custance), the Ron Wyatt archaeology issues and the Shroud-blood questions, and other points of interest, I will be happy to be a participant. We can even do a full study on the Wilderness of Shur. (Noting that my own views on the shroud are largely questions anyway, especially in noting one issue and study largely missed.)
==============
And I actually brought some of these issues up on Quodlibeta thinking that it might offer a more sound forum for study and consideration than the general run of internet forums. Since I saw this improved level occurs up to a point on issues like discussion of the mythicism approach to Bible history. Apparently though, there are severe limitations.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven