waysider

Hmmm. I think I might see the problem.

It's perfectly fine to disagree with something. Disagreement should be expected and welcomed in any valid discussion. However, it would be helpful in understanding your point of view if you would specify what you disagree with and explain why.

If we're still talking about building something, one need look no further than how the article's author builds to a conclusion in the final four or five paragraphs. edit: referring to the Historical Paul article.

Maybe I'm having a bad day or something but, at least to me, this sounds a lot like the argument people use when they say "Yeah, that Wierwille was a bum but, gosh darn it, he sure taught some good word".

Happy birthday, Twinky. Have you given any thought to what you might like to do when you grow up?

Bullinger used the old "Do you still beat your wife?" ploy with this. If you answer "no", it means you used to beat your wife but no longer do so. If you answer "yes", it means you beat your wife. But, what if you don't beat your wife and never have? The question forces you to distort reality. Bullinger forced the text to mean something that it never really said. I think this is representative of Bullinger's methods, lots of dancing around words to make them say you beat your wife. Dr. Juedes wrote about it here. Sorry, I've veered off-topic again..

I'm not sure if this is on-topic. It's tangential, at the least. It was Bullinger who concocted the 4-crucified scenario that has since been debunked.

He was also an ultradispensationalist. So there's that, as well. Now, as to the "computer only" scenario, I think people tend to ignore how incredibly advanced some ancient civilizations were in their understanding of complex mathematics.

And, at least with boot camp, you know it won't last forever.

This was the key to it all, right here. Sure, they made money on classes, advances, WC labor etc. There was usually a minimal operational cost involved. But, this was absolutely 100% free money. And, it was consistently flowing in, month after month and year after year. We paid for the "privilege" of being an uncompensated sales force. No salary, no commissions, no bonuses. Just a sharp smack of the ruler to the back of the hand if you failed to meet quota. Some weren't even that lucky. That's a whole other subject.

It was fool's gold. I'm from a blue collar family. I wasn't sure what genuine gold was supposed to look like. In addition, it placated a lot of concerned, skeptical parents. Now, there are those who may say it was my fault because I'm the one who made the choice. They are right, to a degree. But, If someone sells you fool's gold under the premise that it's genuine, knowing that it's fake, they must share in the culpability, as well.

This was one of my biggest disappointments with the FellowLaborers program, as well. It was pitched as a way to gain in-depth training and insight. Turns out it was just a stinking commune with a Biblical facade.

You don't argue with a coconut. You mix it with lime and drink it all up.

We're all aware of this section of scripture, Mark. I think you may be missing the point.

It doesn't "add" anything because it's simply restating what the Bible says about itself. If you brought something from an outside source, and then showed how it was corroborated by the scripture you posted, that would be adding.

How was I rude or snobbish? Anyway, what makes you so sure Bullinger's works are accurate? (His approach to dispensations, for example) As to grieving for those who have passed, we do that on a different thread.

Girl: "You can't lie on the internet." Guy: "How do you know?" Girl: "I read it on the internet." In other words, you can't use the Bible as proof of itself.

Yes.

It needs some salt pork.

Documentation? We don't need no stinking documentation. It's deductive reasoning. The guy says he was born without a brain. Who would ever make such a claim unless...they were born without a brain. Hence, he must have been born without a brain. See how easy that was?

HERE is the link. If you watch closely, you'll catch a glimpse of BatBoy, in the background, preparing a kale smoothie for David Pecker.

I wonder if he's related to Edward Scissorhands.

A (negates what follows) Theism (belief in the existence of God ) Thus, it's a belief that God does not exist. The Jesus aspect is a red herring of sorts. Theism is a rather large umbrella of spiritual, religious beliefs. Under that umbrella there exist many variations, including Christianity, Deism, Judaism, Islam, Greek Mythology, etc. They all share a common thread. They all believe in the existence of one or more Gods. The common thread they don't share is Jesus. As an example: Founding fathers Jefferson , Franklin, and likely others, believed in the existence of God but not in the existence of a supernatural Jesus or supernatural powers and events. They were Deists, a subset of Theism. They believed in the possible existence of God but not in the supernatural aspects involved with Christianity.

Long answer made really, really short: Genuine languages have identifiable structural components. A linguist does not have to identify a particular language in order to know if it fulfills the structural requirements. S.I.T. has never been shown to meet that threshold.