A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-06-2012, 04:28 PM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2012 10:23 PM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(01-06-2012 08:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Tennis for Beginners, Keeping the Needle away from E , and replacing one addiction with another.
(or how to waste an hour in the Denver airport, waiting for a plane)


defacto7:

"if your comments are line by line quotes, not concise, ... I won't read any further. Sorry, I need some completeness in the order....There are conditions. It's really no biggie. I am curious if you can answer it as the person."

S.T. Ranger :
"My hopes in coming here was that there was someone that actually had a little bit of knowledge of scripture outside of the refutations given by this website".

"I see the quote system disjointed when it's line by line"
"If it is a simple question, as you have implied in both posts so far, is whether I break it up even an issue?"

"Though never really having any instruction about God, we were taught about the dangers of drugs and alcohol, and at thirteen, the thought of using would have been absurd. However, the Rock Culture goes hand in hand with these addictions, and my heroes at that time used. By fourteen, so did I. At fifteen, I dropped out of high school, and went to work, and primarily so I could support my habits.


Mark Fulton : "in my opinion your wonderfully real correspondence with him is way over his head." .... "By his own admission he is a simple man. By his own admission he has absolutely no interest in discussing history or what any of the great philosophers, past or present, have to say. His whole world revolves around his interpretation of his silly book...and that's fine....for him. Yet he is wasting everyone else's time. You will be lucky to get a direct answer about anything from him. You will read pages and pages and get almost jack shit out of it."


defacto7 : "The conditions:

1. "Do not use a scripture verse or biblical reference of any kind or that anyone else offers that is based on biblical or scriptural authority, and no references within a work, book or a scripture."

2. "Speak for yourself, not me or anyone else."

3. "No quotes other than your own, is the third."

4. "The last thing I ask is that you not get picky about specific wording of the question or qualification to discard the question. It just is what it is. You decide what it means to you. There are no tricks here."

*************** My assumptions:

"I assume you believe in God. I assume you believe in the Christian faith".

S.T. Ranger : "in fact have believed in God since I was very young. Mostly because of my grandfather"; "Nevertheless, you cannot go through this life without hearing about God. And still, I had a belief in my heart...that He existed"; (non-sequitur noted, bells start to ring).

"for the next ten years, I played Metal, used and drank, and worked. And in all of that time, I still believed in God."

"resulting in a situation or condition I wish to avoid, my belief, coupled with the desire to avoid such a condition, will cause me to act accordingly, and keep the needle away from "E."


"who I was in my heart was that same little boy who always associated himself with the good guys in the books I read" / "that after years of having an internal hatred for who I was, due to who my heart saw myself" (bell rings again)

"Anyway, the fourth or fifth service, something happened: my heart was broken. You might say that it was guilt. But it centered around, not necessarily the messages preached by the preacher, but it was as though my life was laid before me to examine, my heart was exposed, and I saw for the first time the person I was. And I was horrified. On this night, I was overcome by a desire to not be that person anymore, to be rid of him. I went forward when they gave an "altar call," sweating, scared to death, because I did not know Who God was, but I believed that if I went forward...God would meet me there.

And to this day, I believe He did. "

"but it is something by which every thought, every action, revolves around. Just as my life before revolved around drugs and alcohol, such as, I worked to supply my habit, even so now, I believe because of the knowledge of God"

"The truth is, I have always believed intellectually in God. But that belief was not a belief that was enough to affect who I was. Since my conversion, one of the greatest evidences that God has become part of my life is that the belief itself has not dimmed. While it is true that the New Testament holds instruction for the believer, there is also God Himself that speaks to my heart, and it was His voice that spoke to me not just at my conversion, but even before that, when I began to think that perhaps the person I considered myself to be was not the person I was."

"why do I believe in the "Christian faith."
"If one reads the bible, it cannot be missed that God has revealed Himself to man in a progressive manner"

" The condition of my heart was, and still is, the primary focus in my life." (bell rings, not god ??, definition of Narcissism )

"Long story short, it has been a continual search for understanding concerning the Christian faith," and I try to embrace the faith that is found in scripture"

"bottom line, I embrace the Christian faith, not the faith of other believers (and I am being honest when I say I am a source of irritation for other believers as well), but I seek to understand the faith that is found in the source of that faith. So you could say I believe in the Christian faith because I have a belief that God gave the Bible to man, that he might know God."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Every Israeli Archaeologist, without exception, (the people with the most to loose with the admission), as well as virtually every other archaeologist with an interest in the Ancient Near East now agrees that the (supposedly) "historical" events recounted in the texts of Genesis and Exodus did not, and could not have occurred according to the chronology claimed by Biblical literalist/fundamentalists. We know for certain, and there is NO dispute, in academic circles that the texts of the Pentateuch were actually written in the post-exilic years, (586-539 BCE), and we know in general the motivations for each of the texts. http://biologos.org/uploads/resources/en...essay3.pdf

2. If they are not historical texts, (as has been proven, countless times, by every commonly accepted historical method), and if we know for certain, by every generally accepted dating method, that the dating claims of fundamentalists/literists are not credible, then what sort of texts are they ?

3. We know, from historical/form critical analysis that the present version of the texts which are claimed to have ultimate, (''God given") authority, as having been "given" by a deity, (in it's present form), actually is not the original version, (form), and have, in fact, been edited, re-assembled, and re-written many times by humans, to suit the cultural needs of the day in which the re-writing /re-editing was done. If we know with absolute certainty that the present version is not the original version, it begs the questions, "when in the long complex writing, re-writing, and editing process did the deity actually stamp the final "revelation" on the texts ?", and which of the many, often disagreeing, writers and editors were actually the recipient of what is called 'inspiration' ?".

Some of the major milestones in the fascinating field of Biblical Archaeology are listed in : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology . Biblical Archaeology developed into an accepted field of academic inquiry in the mid to late 1800's, as a part of human's search for knowledge, and understanding, according to the emerging "scientific" paradigm.

Along with Archaeology, in the mid Nineteenth Century, there also arose, in academic circles, both in the United States, and in Europe, generally in Ivy League schools, and in the German Universities, (Tubingen..Germany being the center, and remains so today), a field of academic inquiry, generally housed within the Religion and Theology Departments, which is known today as "Form Criticism". The two, (well known to those with educations in the field), giants in the field were Hermann Gunkel, and Rudolph Bultmann. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_criticism . Bultmann possessed a towering intellect, (he wrote "Jesus Christ and Mythology") and believed that with the use of a method which he called "deconstruction", he could approach the original meaning of an ancient text. He anticipated a field, which is now called "Linguistics", and is related to another field of study called "semiotic analysis". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics .

We know for certain, that threads of oral traditions, which we know for certain, were assembled, written, and edited in a specific span of a known historical time period. In general, (even though it is a complex and on-going source of debate what those threads were), .. in general they are labeled by scholars by a letter name ; Y(J), P, and D. (There are others, but those are 3 of the main ones). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_source Each of the source texts had their own known motivation, and known expected audience.

During the years of the Babylonian Exile, and after, the national identity and confidence, (the self applied "chosen" thingy) of the Hebrew people was shattered by the experience of having been attacked, and defeated by the Babylonian army, and dragged into exile, along with the religious artifacts they had thought represented their god's "presence" among them. The loss of this confidence, and the need to re-form a cohesive society, with some common foundational "myth" systems, and "non-verbal" working assumptions led to the writing and editing of a "national story". Thus a written form of the Pentateuch arose, in a know historical context, written entirely and ONLY by human beings.

After hundreds of years and great human controvesy, which continues to this day, humans, settled on which texts they would accept as "authentic" and as a result of a complex historical process, known to historians as "canon formation" some of the texts were, (non-unanimously) voted in, and some were voted out, of the canon, (the present day "bible").


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .

Someone who "dropped out of high school" could not possibly be aware of what is going on, or has gone on, in the serious academic field of Biblical exegesis/study, during the last 175 years. The "bull in the china shop" analogy is inevitable. Here we are presented with a second example of Dunning-Kruger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%...ger_effect .

Additionally, we are presented with a total absence of any knowledge of Philosophy, it's many fields of inquiry, and ALL their arguments and the nuances of ANY of them.

We are also presented here, with a complete lack of any familiarity with even ONE of the scientific arguments, and fields of inquiry.

We are asked to accept, coming from one totally unfamiliar with Logic, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, as he speaks/implies that there is a "true christian", (even though he would not know what that means).

He has not one shred of historical knowledge in which to place his totally, 21st Century limited, understanding, in context.

His fundamentalist/literalist understanding is completely closed off by the fact that he has never, (apparently, obviously), looked at even one of the other competing views of the texts, and apparently is not even familiar with the competing arguments.

He assumes as true, without any examination, the worldview that gods still require the anachronistic ancient requirement for sacrifice.

He has no knowledge, apart from what he "thinks" he knows about the Covenants, ONLY from one source, of what the actual historical facts are about the formation, and meanings of those Covenants.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The human choice to approach any text with a fundamentalist-literalist approach, even while falsely assuming that, that very choice is not a human choice, and a specific decision to approach a text (with it's underlying, unspoken assumtions), is delusional, and denial of the actual choice and decision process.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tennis For Beginners: "Tennis is a game that really has no restrictions on who can play. It doesn't matter what your age, size or gender, if you have the desire you can play. Even kids can learn to play this game. Although it's a great way to get some exercise, you should be in relatively good shape because of all of the running it will require you to do."

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him". Proverbs 26:4



Very good, BB, I actually enjoyed that. I just have to ask: Has a high school drop-out as ignorant as I am made you resort to the third person? Or do you play to an audience?

You may think that somehow my formal education being limited as it is and your highlighting this may shame me, but I would just remind you, if I were really that concerned about it...do you think I would have posted it?

But that's okay, judging from the discussion we have had it is necessary for you to avoid conversation and to simply get to what is thought a character assault. Just doesn't bother me, really.

I have a few minutes before I go to a graduation, so I will just hit a few highlights for now:


First, if defacto's terms are mentioned because you wish to find me in violation, that was months ago, I said my piece, and the "question to StRanger" is done. This recent conversation has been primarily between others and myself.

Secondly, if you would like to talk about the testimony I gave, let me know, be glad to.

Quote:Someone who "dropped out of high school" could not possibly be aware of what is going on, or has gone on, in the serious academic field of Biblical exegesis/study, during the last 175 years.

So let me get this straight: anyone that has dropped out of high school is completely ignorant...is that it? Not that I have not said I was not ignorant, but I can suggest you give a little thought to your wikipedian knowledge base, and by that I mean the fact that you are in total reliance upon someone else for that which you believe.

Is it any wonder, or are we amazed if a Jew does not believe? I think I asked you before, not sure, but...have you ever actually read the Bible?

Quote:S.T. Ranger :
"My hopes in coming here was that there was someone that actually had a little bit of knowledge of scripture outside of the refutations given by this website".

I am still waiting on this one.

Quote:Mark Fulton : "in my opinion your wonderfully real correspondence with him is way over his head." .... "By his own admission he is a simple man. By his own admission he has absolutely no interest in discussing history or what any of the great philosophers, past or present, have to say. His whole world revolves around his interpretation of his silly book...and that's fine....for him. Yet he is wasting everyone else's time. You will be lucky to get a direct answer about anything from him. You will read pages and pages and get almost jack shit out of it."

That you get nothing out of it may have to do with study habits and preclusion.

I probably already said something about the content here, but will do so again: you guys are faithful to your literature and prophets. What is sad is that though you charge religionists, and worse, Christians, with corrupting the word of God, you will not once let it enter your thoughts that maybe, just maybe...it is your own prophets that have been deceitful.

Let's think about that. You say the Israeli archaeologists have the most to lose...where do you get that idea? Are you under the impression that Israel and those of this nation are loyal to God and His word? Perhaps you might want to wikipedia that, if they have actual information on it.

Quote:1. Every Israeli Archaeologist, without exception, (the people with the most to loose with the admission),

By the way you do not spell lose...loose. The dog got loose. Mom will kill me if I lose my lunch money.

Quote:4. "The last thing I ask is that you not get picky about specific wording

OOPS! Sorry defacto.


Quote:"The truth is, I have always believed intellectually in God.

If you would like to discuss what this means, let me know.


Quote:Additionally, we are presented with a total absence of any knowledge of Philosophy, it's many fields of inquiry, and ALL their arguments and the nuances of ANY of them.

Does this mean I have not studied your preachers well enough? By the way, I use the term prophet also, and this is meant to refer to those that "speak to men." Who they speak for is all that changes.

You do not know me well enough to assess this.


Quote:We are also presented here, with a complete lack of any familiarity with even ONE of the scientific arguments, and fields of inquiry.

Which field is it that I need to be expert in, that you might lower your standards to speak to me?

Quote:We are asked to accept, coming from one totally unfamiliar with Logic, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, as he speaks/implies that there is a "true christian", (even though he would not know what that means).

How would you know? You have shown an ignorance of Christian Doctrine, how is it that you might identify one that claims to know Christian Doctrine? This is laughable.


Quote:He has not one shred of historical knowledge in which to place his totally, 21st Century limited, understanding, in context.

You betray yourself, BB. How does one know what another does after a few exchanges, and then refuse to continue a discussion about a doctrine that threads it's way through the entirety of scripture?

You say my knowledge is 21st century, but really...how would you even have a clue? If someone "believes in Jesus" you assume they are a Christian. Do you also assume that if some speaks English they are Americans?

Quote:His fundamentalist/literalist understanding is completely closed off by the fact that he has never, (apparently, obviously), looked at even one of the other competing views of the texts, and apparently is not even familiar with the competing arguments.

Try me and see, lol. If you can contain your hatred. And don't deny it, out of the mouth, and that typed, the heart speaketh. (Thats "speaks" for those that struggle with the King's english)

Quote:He assumes as true, without any examination, the worldview that gods still require the anachronistic ancient requirement for sacrifice.

A lol really doesn't cover this one. Perhaps a rofl? But no, I haven't left my chair. Hmmm.

Little bit of hint: Christians believe in the One True Living God. Not gods.

Another one: Christians that have studied, understand that there is One Sacrifice for sin, and it has been accomplished. Want a notion to really make you dislike me? I have been perfected...forever.

Yep, that's right, I am, according to scripture...perfect. Want to talk about that? I can tell you this, none of the religions you may be familiar will have propbably mentioned this. Just like in your research of the Doctrine of the New Covenant escaped your notice.

Quote:He has no knowledge, apart from what he "thinks" he knows about the Covenants, ONLY from one source, of what the actual historical facts are about the formation, and meanings of those Covenants.


Again, try me. At the very least you will actually know something about Christian Doctrine, and when you teach others, you will, after googling enough, have at least a chance of staying in the conversation.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:The human choice to approach any text with a fundamentalist-literalist approach, even while falsely assuming that, that very choice is not a human choice, and a specific decision to approach a text (with it's underlying, unspoken assumtions), is delusional, and denial of the actual choice and decision process.

What do you know of hermeneutics?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Quote:Tennis For Beginners: "Tennis is a game that really has no restrictions on who can play. It doesn't matter what your age, size or gender, if you have the desire you can play. Even kids can learn to play this game. Although it's a great way to get some exercise, you should be in relatively good shape because of all of the running it will require you to do."

My, you are the clever one, aren't you? Wink


Quote:"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him". Proverbs 26:4


That is good advice.

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2012, 04:53 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
S.T., with due respect, the lack of knowledge and the amount of ignorance in a single post of yours is astounding. There is no need to have faith in our literature (assuming you're talking about non-believers in general), as scientific books are backed up with evidence, instead of eyewitness reports that have been written down decades after the events took place. And what prophets are you talking about? Atheists/Agnostics do not have any prophets.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
01-06-2012, 05:50 PM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2012 09:05 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
I'm going to save everyone some time by posting a generic "ST" reply to anything that is posted. I'll leave out the spelling mistakes and the poor grammar.

"points a, b and c" (this will be a transcript from someone trying to help him, which he includes to pretend he has actually understood what his antagonist is saying)

Point d (which will be nonsensical and bear no relation to points a,b or c.)

Did you learn this from scripture? Have you read scripture? Why don't we discuss scripture? When are we going to get around to scripture? No one here understands scripture. Most Christians are ignorant of scripture. I know scripture. I've studied it, honest! I wipe my arse with fucking scripture it's that fucking good.

I'm ignorant. I'm stupid. Yet I'm proud of it. And I have no intention of changing how I am. I'm not going to read anything unless it is...scripture.

You are only relying on the words of men. You haven't read scripture. So anything you say is worthless. When are we going to talk about scripture?

I'm busy.

LOL

God bless.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mark Fulton's post
01-06-2012, 05:55 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(01-06-2012 04:28 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  What do you know of hermeneutics?

I know Herman Munster. Does that count ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-06-2012, 06:25 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(01-06-2012 05:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-06-2012 04:28 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  What do you know of hermeneutics?

I know Herman Munster. Does that count ?

Shit dude, think I am Herman Munster. Wink




As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
01-06-2012, 09:20 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(01-06-2012 01:50 AM)Jedah Wrote:  
(01-06-2012 01:09 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  A genuine question to anyone reading this post.

Does anyone else have trouble making the slightest sense out of anything St is saying? I am getting an occasional sense that there is a loose transient connection between what he writes and the topic at hand, but that is about it. Im trying to follow his trail of thought, but without any success.

It is very hard to judge the mental state of someone without seeing and hearing them. For those who don't know, i am a doctor of medicine with considerable experience dealing with psychological and psychiatric issues. Our friend ST is probably a little unwell. This has nothing to do with his religious beliefs. He just seems incapable of sticking to a topic, and is forever jumping to spurious conclusions and assumptions. He is repeating himself without realizing it. These traits can be features of mental illness. I am not being derogatory or making fun of him. I'm just pointing out that he may be unwell in the sense that someone is unwell if they have an ingrown toenail or appendicitis.

I may be wrong. I have never met him. He will probably be offended by what I have said. I just ask everyone to bear the possibility in mind.

Dear bro:

Why ~~~~~~~~~ so ~~~~~~~~~~ serious ~~~~?? Trolling has nothing to do with psychopath, eh?

Our friend probably has no one in reality appreciates his ill humor so he came here to seek some approve. As a doctor, you know better than I do what to do Evil_monster
Yeah...good question...I don't know why i bother...its not as though he's shown the slightest real interest in anything anyone else has said.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2012, 09:55 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(01-06-2012 04:53 PM)Vosur Wrote:  S.T., with due respect, the lack of knowledge and the amount of ignorance in a single post of yours is astounding.

Be glad to have you straighten me out.


(01-06-2012 04:53 PM)Vosur Wrote:  There is no need to have faith in our literature (assuming you're talking about non-believers in general), as scientific books are backed up with evidence, instead of eyewitness reports that have been written down decades after the events took place.

Yes, I have seen some of the "evidence" given for your beliefs concerning many things.

I do not question science, what I question is many claims to have truth concerning God and His word.

(01-06-2012 04:53 PM)Vosur Wrote:  And what prophets are you talking about? Atheists/Agnostics do not have any prophets.

Anyone that speaks to man purporting to have truth is in a sense, a prophet. I gave my use of the term in the last post I think. What is interesting about many people that speak, seeking to further an agenda, they actually speak in advance about their findings.

If you stop to think about it, and look at the theory of evolution, conclusions were, and still are, made before there has been any evidence found. "If we can just find this, if we can just find that." Like I said before, just like the preacher that said, "I have a great message, if I could only find a passage to fit it."

But if you like, I will call them preachers.

Surely you can see the similarities between your preachers and mine...can't you?

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2012, 10:06 PM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2012 10:29 PM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(01-06-2012 05:50 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I'm going to save everyone some time by posting a generic "ST" reply to anything that is posted. I'll leave out the spelling mistakes and the poor grammar.

"points a, b and c" (this will be a transcript from someone trying to help him, which he includes to pretend he has actually understood what his antagonist is saying)

Point d (which will be nonsensical and bear no relation to points a,b or c.)

Did you learn this from scripture? Have you read scripture? Why don't we discuss scripture? When are we going to get around to scripture? No one here understands scripture. Most Christians are ignorant of scripture. I know scripture. I've studied it, honest! I wipe my arse with fucking scripture it's that fucking good.

I'm ignorant. I'm stupid. Yet I'm proud of it. And I have no intention of changing how I am. I'm not going to read anything unless it is...scripture.

You are only relying on the words of men. You haven't read scripture. So anything you say is worthless. When are we going to talk about scripture?

I'm busy.

LOL

God bless.


Resorting to this kind of response so soon, Mark?

lol

It is odd that in 10,000 hours of study of scripture, so far you have proven that the only knowledge you have is what you have read of others. I will ask again: Is it such a strange thing that there is a multitude of literature out there that will cater to the beliefs that one wishes to hold? And it has never crossed your mind that perhaps those that seek to discredit Christianity might have...lied to you? That your instructors, your professors, your...preachers, have not been entirely honest?

But those that claim to follow a God that teaches against lying...would? The Apostles could have preserved their lives...why didn't they? Why would they lie about something and give their lives for that lie?

You know, the internet has changed the world in a very significant way: it used to be that if one wanted to understand something, if one wanted to look for truth, they had to do the work for themselves. Just as TV has weakened the American mind, having his entertainment supplied to him while he drones out, even so with the knowledge people seek, they simply need to find an accomodating source...and read it.

You certainly did not derive your theology from a proper exegesis of scripture (sorry, I see how this word seems to upset you), not even in a beginning level. For if you had, at the very least you could carry on a conversation concerning some pretty basic doctrine without the schoolyard antics.

Now, my suggestion to you would be this: if you don't want to talk about scripture, don't ask someone to do so. If you remember, you are the one that wanted to. You know...the secret Bible knowledge thing...lol.

Okay, enjoyed your post, as I am sure many did, and, thanks for the blessing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2012, 10:12 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(01-06-2012 05:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-06-2012 04:28 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  What do you know of hermeneutics?

I know Herman Munster. Does that count ?
Okay, a serious question: care to fill me in on your expertise concerning this:

Someone who "dropped out of high school" could not possibly be aware of what is going on, or has gone on, in the serious academic field of Biblical exegesis/study, during the last 175 years.

I would greatly like to hear your take on "what has been going on in the serious academic field of Biblical Exegesis."

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2012, 10:13 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(01-06-2012 06:25 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(01-06-2012 05:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I know Herman Munster. Does that count ?

Shit dude, think I am Herman Munster. Wink

You would make fun of Herman?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: