But sometimes words are mis-translated. In the KJV a word was translated as "slave" and that single translation led slavery as we had it in the US. The word should have been translated as "bond-servant" which is completely different than slavery. That is why it is important to know some history and some original language.
I didn't say "no" to the things you said I did. You are a liar. Plain and simple.
No, it is not the same. A slave is an unwilling arrangement. I take you prisoner and force you to work for me. A bond servant at the time of Christ was a person who sold themselves into bondage to a family. They were frequently trusted with raising the children and managing the finances of their owner.
No more so than you. Each and every time you respond to a line or a phrase from a poster and ignore the rest of the post you are guilty of what you accuse me (and others) of.
Prove that I have done so, pervert.
Provide one single piece of evidence. You can't. :loser:
Okey dokey. Here is what I said originally:
So you responded to the first sentence and ignored the second sentence wherein I said that you were not saying that a person did not need a sound biblical base for teaching and debates. It would appear that you read the first sentence, blew a cork, fired of your typical response and never bothered to actually read the rest of the post.
Originally Posted by CabinetMaker 
Hmmm.. It appears as though Ghost does not believe that a person needs to have sound knowledge of biblical principles to either teach the bible or to hold a discussion with people about the meaning of the bible.
It appears that you cannot read, and are in fact a liar and a slanderer. I never implied or said anything close to your false accusation.
"It appears that you cannot read, and are in fact a liar and a slanderer. I never implied or said anything close to your false accusation. "
CM...
That is what I pointed out in the part of the original post that you continue to ignore. It is just that your response to AMR was so poorly worded that it is hard to determine what part of AMR's post you were saying no to. SO, I needled you a bit about the poor wording and then pointed out that you were basically being obtuse.
My "no" responses are to his questions. I said "no" to them, because I meant "no".
| Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion Ghost, as a self-professed teacher of Scripture, do you believe that exegesis requires those of us that teach Scripture possess a sound knowledge and consideration of the underlying ancient Biblical languages? |
| Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion Ghost, do you believe that when one is engaged in a formal theological discussion, such as this one-on-one, that proper exegesis is an essential aspect to make one’s points clear and to illuminate the Scripture being discussed? |
Originally Posted by Ghost: No |
| exegesis: a critical interpretation or explication, especially of biblical and other religious texts. |
The fact that you are asking me this is proof that you cannot read. The context of "sound knowledge" has to do with the ancient biblical languages, not of the Bible.
Again, that is not what he asked. He asked if proper exegesis was essential to make a point clear or to give illumination to Scripture. The answer was and is "no" it is not necessary.
Still ignoring the part of the original post means you are still guilty of doing what you claim I am doing since I never accused of anything other than being obtuse.
Seems as though the two are one in the same given that the Bible is originally written in ancient Biblical languages. As pointed out earlier in this thread, a mis-interpretation of one word when being translated from ancient biblical languages to Olde English lead to several generations of slavery in this country.ghost said:
Again, given the definition of exegesis, how do you conclude that a critical and proper understand of Biblical texts is not required to teach people those same texts?ghost said:
{Translation: Once again backed into a corner, Ghost throws up hands and flees the conversation.}