111
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
: MylesP, the reference here is to the common use of "the past": a personal past. It does refer to "history", which has its own term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 9 January 2009 (EST)
: MylesP, the reference here is to the common use of "the past": a personal past. It does refer to "history", which has its own term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 9 January 2009 (EST)
Andy, I’m quite a Conservative when it comes to the English language, and it appears to me that in this field of human affairs I am talking to a barefoot Bohemian radical. Your bull in a China shop confidence is not matched by an equivalence in understanding of matters linguistic. Excuse me, but where did you obtain the notion that the plain and ancient term “the past” refers to personal events and not historical ones? Not a dictionary, that is for certain. Let me give you access to an excellent dictionary site:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=past&ls=a
Here, you will be linked to no less than 26 authoritative dictionaries and encyclopedias, not ONE of which agrees with your ad hoc definition. That, no doubt, shows you just how rotten the shadowy puppet masters of onelook are in their satanic attempts to sideline the Bible, but nevertheless, their view must be taken seriously. In Alice in Wonderland, Humpty Dumpty says, in a scornful tone: “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' Unfortunately for Humpty (and for you), words have meanings which are generally accepted as legitimate by those who speak that language, else conversation would be like unto the residents of Babel (although that is not so far removed from goes on around this neck of the woods today).
Two quick points: 1. I imagine that you meant to write “it does not mean” where you wrote “it does mean”, the last making nonsense of your point. Do try to proof read your missives, Andy. I mean most of them are only a couple of lines long so it should not be that difficult.
2. In any case, if your mystifying point is that the Gospels contain no reference to the personal history of those who are mentioned in its pages, then that notion is just as erroneous. Indeed, it is difficult to see how a book which aims to provide first hand accounts witnessing to their authors’ faith could do so without mentioning the circumstances relating to their conversion, a matter which is in the past, and undeniably personal.
As one example, we need only look at Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, which is dealt with by Luke in Acts, and of course many times by Paul in his epistles. The episode is the lynchpin of Paul’s life and work. In another example from the life of Jesus, He heals a blind man. His disciples ask (very presciently I have always thought): “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” And Jesus answers: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned…” Here is a discussion between Jesus and his disciples concerning the PAST of one of those he healed, and the reasons for his plight. That’s pretty much QED for my case, though I could point to a dozen other examples.
I have now written 20 fold as much as you on this subject, so I seek that you should elucidate us all as to the gist of your latest crusade. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:06, 9 January 2009 (EST)