High Street Sales Slumpm Government...
News2 mins ago
The Truth Of The Bible.
574 Answers
Only the bible describes the state of the world as we head into the End Times.
Only the bible has verifiable prophecies that can be tested for truth.
Is it not time to take the bible seriously?
Only the bible has verifiable prophecies that can be tested for truth.
Is it not time to take the bible seriously?
Answers
the letter in the Times today said: Bible Studies Dear Sir, Keith Elliott writes about the debate over the exclusive authority of the New Testament (credo letters). Christians believe that canonical scripture was established under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That some books entered the canon 'by the skin of their teeth' is immaterial....
18:23 Tue 20th Jul 2021
OK, since you are being deliberately obstructive and refusing to see that the question inadvertently asked to Khando was clearly for you -
Why do you persist in peddling this viewpoint which, although clearly valid and important to you, receives virtually no support but entire reams of negative responses?
You do it repeatedly, always the same message, always the same responses, which refute your message.
Then you accuse responders of either being too stupid to interperet the bible in the way that seems open only to you, or you accuse them of being ignorant non-believers.
My question is - if you have posted this argument endless of times, anyone who agrees with you has done so silently and without response, and those who don't agree, you won't debate or discuss with, so why on earth are you still doing this?
What do you hope to achieve?
It cannot be acceptnace and agreement - even you must see that you are not being agreed with in any way shape or form.
That's my question THELAND - why are you still doing this?
Why do you persist in peddling this viewpoint which, although clearly valid and important to you, receives virtually no support but entire reams of negative responses?
You do it repeatedly, always the same message, always the same responses, which refute your message.
Then you accuse responders of either being too stupid to interperet the bible in the way that seems open only to you, or you accuse them of being ignorant non-believers.
My question is - if you have posted this argument endless of times, anyone who agrees with you has done so silently and without response, and those who don't agree, you won't debate or discuss with, so why on earth are you still doing this?
What do you hope to achieve?
It cannot be acceptnace and agreement - even you must see that you are not being agreed with in any way shape or form.
That's my question THELAND - why are you still doing this?
-- answer removed --
nailit - //
//Are you there Theland? //
Are are you there Andy?
Why do you insist on removing my posts that actually defend the right to let Theland and others to have their views? //
I am not minded to get into pointless arguments about moderation, they tend to be removed anyway, but for the record, I have not removed any posts of yours for as long as I can remember, and while we are here, I did not close the thread on which we were engaged in an exchange.
//Are you there Theland? //
Are are you there Andy?
Why do you insist on removing my posts that actually defend the right to let Theland and others to have their views? //
I am not minded to get into pointless arguments about moderation, they tend to be removed anyway, but for the record, I have not removed any posts of yours for as long as I can remember, and while we are here, I did not close the thread on which we were engaged in an exchange.
anne - // So is it now acceptable for abers to have a one to one discussion with a mod re previous posts ? //
I doubt it.
I would hardly call it a 'discussion' - nailit was aggrieved that a post of his was removed, and appeared to believe that I was the party responsible.
I was happy to correct his assumption, and that's the end of the issue.
If the posts involved are removed, then so be it, but I am certainly not in the habit of instigating, or encouraging such discussions.
But I balance that against the need for erroneous impressions about my moderation, and the reasons behind it, and my personal need to defend my integrity.
I doubt it.
I would hardly call it a 'discussion' - nailit was aggrieved that a post of his was removed, and appeared to believe that I was the party responsible.
I was happy to correct his assumption, and that's the end of the issue.
If the posts involved are removed, then so be it, but I am certainly not in the habit of instigating, or encouraging such discussions.
But I balance that against the need for erroneous impressions about my moderation, and the reasons behind it, and my personal need to defend my integrity.
