I didn't talk about spiritual matters, but matters that are objectively available for examination.
For example, you don't believe Isaiah 7:14 is a Messianic prophecy
It's not a messianic prophesy but a sign God promised to king Ahaz, the king of Judah, who lived seven hundred years before Virgin Mary. Read the whole chapter and tell me where it becomes a 1st century "messianic" prophecy.
you think Paul was wrong-headed about many things
Yes, and you think is was not.
you think the KJV was "manipulated" and "untrustworthy"
That is objectively true. Nothing spiritual in that.
you think the "Reformed" are wrong
On some things, yes. And your point is?
Can you just give a knowledgeable contribution on language without adding your "agnostic" opinions? I really do think that is what stfassisi was asking for since you "dis" his faith along with everybody elses'
I was invited to comment on the usage of a word in KJV, which involved also Isiah 7:14. I didn't mention anything that was not mentioned prior to my invitation to comment. Not that an invitation is needed for, or the scope limited in an open threat.
Do I go around policing your posts and telling you how much you should comment? I mean the liberty some of you take when it comes to me is really over the top.
As for SFA, I think, unlike some, he is way too confident in his faith not to be threatened by a dissenting opinion.
Do I go around policing your posts and telling you how much you should comment? I mean the liberty some of you take when it comes to me is really over the top.
This is hilarious. How DARE you have a comment!
I apologize for hurting your feelings about your postings. I do not "police" your posts nor do I tell you how much you should comment, I was responding to your post to Metmom where you said:
To Post #2648
SFA asked me to comment on a linguistic issue, not spiritual matters. Do you understand the difference?
I was pointing out that you were doing much more than commenting on a "linguistic issue" in your post. Do you understand the difference?