wrote:

>> > CONTEXT!  Who is the writer speaking directly to?
>>
>> The fact that you're shouting proves that you know that
>> both your logical and theological grounds are non-existant.
>>
>> Theologically, the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture,
>> and _all_ Scripture is given for _our_ learning.  Each verse
>> of Scripture is written "directly to" the reader.
>>
> Dragging that red herring all over aren't we!
>
> This is exactly why we have so many different "opinions" about what
> the bible in general is teaching or what a particular passage is
> teaching. You completely dismiss hermeneutical principles.


No, you just can't read a sentence and comprehend, in even the
remotest sense, what the sentence said.  You were attempting to
argue (using the term in its looses possible sense) that a
verse of Scripture didn't apply because it was direct to
a particular person(s).

What I am talking about here IS a hermenutical principle.  (I
don't worship principles, however, unlike you.)


> Q.  Ever been to a charismatic church where "prophets" are allowed to
> speak.  Most interesting.  What is interesting is that often they
> contradict one another.  This is exactly what you are left with.  You
> have no means to verify error.

I said nothing about interpretation.  I said that verses of
Scripture are spoken to everyone.  And yet here you ranting about
charismatism, and other irrelevant nonsense.


> My hands are in the air.  How does anyone reply to such a response?

Yeah, that's what my kids do:  Roll their eyes and then
slam their bedroom door.  It IS hard to respond when you've
been fairly cornered.



> Then you do exactly what I warn against, you do not make any allowance
> for the distinction between interpretation and application.

When did I not make such an allowance?  Never.  You just made
it up.  You can't read a sentence and understand what that
sentence said.  If you can't read a sentence in USENET and
comprehend it, then how can you possible delude yourself into
thinking that you can read a sentence of Scripture and
comprehend it.

>BTW, you didn't prove any rebuttal to my argument.

An absolute classic. I can't wait to show this example
to my logic classes tomorrow.

1.  One doesn't "prove" rebuttals.  Rather, rebuttals are
proofs.


2.  In order commit "rebuttal", there must be something to
rebut. If you just say "wibble", then there is no rebutting
(or affirming or, indeed, any response at all.)

If you want rebuttal, then say something intelligible.

Bart

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/17/05 1:24:42 PM ---