Quote:
Originally Posted by tonybones2112
Tim, thank you for replying to me. I have never debated you or lambasted you, have I? I apologize if you even think I have done either or been impolite to you in any way. But you just said only the original manuscripts are inspired and that all that remains inspired is Barth's theory. Is there a difference between "meaning" and "message"? I don't see one. Is there a difference?
Hey, if I lambaste you or you feel picked on by me don't respond. Brother I know how things can degenerate in even a simple discussion of an inflammatory topic, go read the water baptism thread and see how it has been made into a schoolground slapfight. I had hoped for a reasonable discussion, it was in vain. Anyway, thanks for the response.
Grace and peace
Tony
|
I was not referring ot you in the lambasting (is that how you say it???). What I mean by meaning is interpretation. I said that the words and letters and meaning was inspired. At least that's what I was intending to say.