Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[smokydot]

Obviously.

If my statement is true that the NIV uses the Nestle text, then why did you make this response, here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2335253-post1292.html?

But it uses other texts at whim without notifying the reader. Variant readings are chosen without the reader aware of precisely what they are doing. It looks like they're playing spin the bottle in the dark.

Working both sides of the street again. . .

These are the guys whose excellence in scholarship you readily acknowledged (when you thought it would enhance your reputation), in the link following:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2277276-post680.html.
--

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If my statement is true that the NIV uses the Nestle text, then why did you make this response, here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2335253-post1292.html?
Working both sides of the street again. . .

These are the guys whose excellence in scholarship you readily acknowledged (when you thought it would enhance your reputation), in the link following:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2277276-post680.html.

:biglaugh:

I don't need to enhance my reputation.

I've been around since 2005. I'm a staff member. Look at my frubal count, post count, and awards.

It's YOU who has destroyed any credibility that you hope to have here, and unless you make a dramatic change, not many people are going to want to read your posts - not to mention pay attention to you in debate or discussion.

You are ceaselessly embarrassing yourself. I say that not to insult, but to point out that you're destroying what little chance you have of being a respected member of the forum.

 

[smokydot]

:biglaugh:
I don't need to enhance my reputation.
I've been around since 2005. I'm a staff member. Look at my frubal count,

How many frubals equal over a million copies sold of one book, as with J. I. Packer, a true Biblical scholar?

post count,

High post count is easy when so many are less than a sentence.

and awards. It's YOU who has destroyed any credibility that you hope to have here, and unless you make a dramatic change, not many people are going to want to read your posts - not to mention pay attention to you in debate or discussion.
You are ceaselessly embarrassing yourself. I say that not to insult, but to point out that you're destroying what little chance you have of being a respected member of the forum.

Sounds like your personal problem to me.

 

[smokydot]

Obviously.

If my statement is true that the NIV uses the Nestle text, then why did you make this response, here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2335253-post1292.html?

Working both sides of the street again? . .as in posts #1361, #1359, #1357, #1175, links following:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2335851-post1361.html -- your second quote
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2335842-post1359.html -- your fourth post
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2335748-post1357.html -- your first quote
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2333344-post1175.html -- your first quote
--

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sounds like your personal problem to me.

.....

 

[angellous_evangellous]

[youtube]vnzcLoxIXHI[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnzcLoxIXHI&playnext=1&list=PLBF2B5A4B6BCF9D14

 

[smokydot]

You're overplaying your hand again. . .

Absolutely not!
The confessions of the churches are taken very seriously and the words are chosen very carefully to best reflect the church's theology and practice.
They all know the cliche "the word of God written" and most churches - even the conservative ones - choose not to word their statement in this way.

Untrue. . .that's just made up. . .and then you try to put legs under it with your condescending "scholarly explanation."

And for good reason, of course. If a particular scholar doesn't like the confession, and all of them know it, they are typically kicked out of their teaching post.... or hopefully they are able to leave.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. . .pathetic try. . .up to your usual sophomoric "brilliance". . .none of which detracts from the fact that the editors of the NIV made part of their confession

"the Bible is the Word of God in written form,"

and all the NIV translators are united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as the Word of God in written form.

You've been left standin' on the outside lookin' in, by the scholars whose excellence you acknowledge here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2277276-post680.html.
--

 

[smokydot]

You really have no reason to believe that scholars and denominations would believe that "the Bible is the Word of God written."

You yourself showed it is the creed of the Anglican Church. . .and there are many more.

Smoky,
YOU said that a true biblical scholar must believe that "the Bible is the Word of God written" and go on about the immanence of the NIV translators... and a minority of them believe it.

Assumes facts not in evidence. . .again.

The NIV reports that "the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form."

One of the many differences between you and me smoky is when I see that I'm wrong I admit it and move on. That's an important characteristic of honesty.

What a load of self-righteousness!

You were caught red-handed making up stuff! . .and now you try to spin it into honesty! . .that is pathetic.

Yes, I was wrong about the NIV translators. Had I known otherwise,

So you didn't know it for fact. . .and yet. . .you clearly presented it as fact. . .to falsesly overthrow my argument. . .not buying your self-righteous spin. . .

Time to deconstruct your statement (second post above--text in red) the way you deconstruct Scripture. . .and get a closer look at your bald-headed lie there:

1) After stating the contested point of doctrine, -- "Scripture is the Word of God written"

2) and then setting up the height of the NIV translators' eminence in my view, "a true Biblical scholar must believe the doctrine. . .you go on about the eminence of the NIV translators..."

3) you then make up stuff. . .to bring it down. . .by trying to knock the props from under their support of my argument (the point of doctrine) with your lie -- "and a minority of them believe it."

You can't spin that as a simple. . .or honest. . .mistake, by saying. . ."I was wrong. . .had I known otherwise."
You're copping to a lesser crime (I was wrong), hoping your true crime (I lied) won't be exposed.

With full knowledge and full consent, you made up stuff. . .to try to knock the props from under their support of my argument. . .it's as plain
as that nose on your face. . .now I know why you so quickly and falsely accuse me of making up stuff. . .you're judging me by yourself. . .evidently, it is your common practice and, therefore, you assume it is also mine. . .very interesting. . .an "honesty" you did not intend has revealed your MO. . .and to quote the infamous (from above), who shall remain nameless,"that's an important characteristic of dis-honesty."

You flat out lied about the NIV translators . .so show this "honesty" you've trotted out above. . .and admit it.

 

[smokydot]

You condemn yourself right along with me because you obviously didn't know this either until you posted it.

I didn't know the NIV translators believed the Bible is God's Word in written form?

Assumes facts not in evidence. . .again.

Again, your faulty logic. . .absence of evidence (for a thing). . .is not. . .evidence of absence (of the thing).

And again, another red herring to detract from being caught red-handed "making up stuff" and lying, here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2337288-post1368.html.

But this red herring above is likewise given the lie, here ---> my third response @

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2332954-post1150.html, showing my long-standing confidence in the true Biblical scholarship of the NIV.
--

 

[Flankerl]

How this thread turned out is so weird that i cant explain it at all.

 

[smokydot]

How this thread turned out is so weird that i cant explain it at all.

Well, lucky you. . .the explanation is here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2337583-post1376.html.
--

 

[Harmonious]

But at least now you know:

1) his acknowledged insincere game, which he admitted here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2315778-post1353.html,

2) the why of all the useless posts. . .which were red herrings and side tracks to avoid his indefensible arguments, on whatever were the issues at hand, and

3) the many repeated posts. . .to get back to his indefensible arguments, which all the red herrings and sidetracks were intended to avoid,
on whatever were the issues at hand.

Or, you could move onto a more productive line of discussion.

If you have decided that it is all his insincere game, be the bigger man and try a new topic.

Let alone whatever "red herrings" or whatever have you went on in previous discussions.

It's clear that whatever else you have to say, you are going to disagree on whatever it is that you are disagreeing about.

Move on. There is SO much to discuss. This insane back and forth, which you have been asked to stop, has gone on for long enough.

If you go through the past ten pages or so (or longer), you will mostly find your posts, which are largely repetitions of previous posts, and angellous's pleading for you to "stop embarrassing yourself."

There are other things that are going on there, breaking up the monotony, but dude...

Let's say, for argument's sake that YOU were right. Is it really worth your time to go back and point out why angellous is wrong? On the same point, over and over and over and over again?

Strike out and find something new to say. Who knows? Maybe even angellous will agree with you.

 

[smokydot]

Or, you could move onto a more productive line of discussion.
If you have decided that it is all his insincere game, be the bigger man and try a new topic.

Well, let's see. . .some of the topics I've tried are:

1) types -- http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2320006-post527.html,

2) letter to the Hebrews -- http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2318469-post513.html,

3) Scripture is the Word of God written -- http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2299244-post85.html, his second quote, point 3)

4) Paul's theology -- http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2331194-post1112.html,

5) NT view of intellectual ability as measure of understanding God's Word written -- http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2334385-post1236.html.

Let alone whatever "red herrings" or whatever have you went on in previous discussions.
It's clear that whatever else you have to say, you are going to disagree onhatever it is that you are disagreeing about.
Move on. There is SO much to discuss. This insane back and forth, which you have been asked to stop, has gone on for long enough.

Very interesting. . .he gets a pass on his insincere game. . .but I should give up my dealing with it. . .does that seem fair to you?

If you go through the past ten pages or so (or longer), you will mostly find your posts,

I didn't make the rules for his game.

which are largely repetitions of previous posts,

In over 1350 posts on this thread, you will find a very few of my posts which appear twice.

and angellous's pleading for you to "stop embarrassing yourself."

Sounds to me like a personal problem he has created for himself.

There are other things that are going on there, breaking up the monotony, but dude...
Let's say, for argument's sake that YOU were right. Is it really worth your time to go back and point out why angellous is wrong? On the same point, over and over and over and over again?

As much as it is worth his time to throw out red herrings over and over and over and over again.

Strike out and find something new to say. Who knows? Maybe even angellous will agree with you.

You are the optimist. . .been there. . .done that. . .he has only one response to whateve subject I may bring up. . .his gamey insincere responses. . .you're dreamin' if you think that will change. . .

 

[Harmonious]

I give up. I've done what I can.

 

[smokydot]

I give up. I've done what I can.

Yes, you have. . .and I thank you for it.

 

[smokydot]

Is there a way we can end the seemingly endless repetition and come to the conclusion that you'll agree to disagree, and move on?

Take it up with angellous. . .it's his game. . .which he acknowledges in the link following your last quote below.

Stop feeding the troll and baiting him with trollish insults.

It's not fun anymore.

Don't say I didn't try.

But at least now you know:

(1) his acknowledged insincere game, which he admitted here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2315778-post1353.html,

(2) the why of all the useless posts. . .which were red herrings and side tracks to avoid his indefensible arguments, on whatever were the issues at hand, and

(3) the many moved posts. . .moving back to his indefensible arguments, which all the red herrings and sidetracks were intended to avoid,
on whatever were the issues at hand.

So, at least you learned his insincere and gamey MO. . .some of which are also recently seen again, in the following links:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2336270-post1364.html -- hypocrisy, working both sides of the street,

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2337281-post1367.html -- "scholarly explanation" to enhance a false argument,

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2337288-post1368.html -- lying, caught red-handed,

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2337292-post1369.html -- refutation fabricated from whole cloth,

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2337513-post1373.html -- five NT revelations contradicted

And then there are those six arguments in the past which he was on the wrong side of, here---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2300254-post1077.html.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In over 1350 posts on this thread, you will find a very few of my posts which appear twice.

:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

 

[smokydot]

:biglaugh:

:bow: :bow: :bow:

Count 'em. . .very few are duplicates. . .

Of the over 1375 posts on this thread, give at least 10 examples of duplicates, with the numbers of the posts in each set of duplicates. . .that would be .007 of 1375.

uh huh, uh huh: hamster :uh huh, uh huh: hamster : uh huh, uh huh

 

[angellous_evangellous]

:bow: :bow: :bow:

Count 'em. . .very few are duplicates. . .

Of the over 1375 posts on this thread, give at least 10 examples of duplicates, with the numbers of the posts in each set of duplicates. . .that would be .007 of 1375.

uh huh, uh huh: hamster :uh huh, uh huh: hamster : uh huh, uh huh

At this point smoky, it doesn't even matter.

Everyone knows that you delete your posts and re-post them later anyway.

 

[smokydot]

At this point smoky, it doesn't even matter.
Everyone knows that you delete your posts and re-post them later anyway.

Very good. . .so they are moved, to get back to the issue at hand. . .they are not duplicated. . .

Staying on the issue at hand, and foregoing all the red herrings and side tracks, would eliminate getting back to the issue at hand. . .it's your call. . .