Sic et non Confuses Facts with Interpretation

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Sic et non Confuses Facts with Interpretation

Post by _Philo Sofee »

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... ospel.html

No surprise. The "fact" he harps on is, in point of fact, nothing but a mere man's (or many men's) interpretation. Peterson is too smart for his own good, especially when he tries to get clever and only demonstrates what a loaf his intellect is, in so many unfortunate and correctable ways, were he to get honest with himself.
The "fact" that the book of Revelation in the Bible is a prophecy at all is an interpretation. The "fact" that Revelation is even a holy book of prophecy is contested and interpreted in more different ways than Shakespeare, Milton, or Franklin ever has been. :rolleyes:

But no one tells Peterson! He's in a testimony bearin mood, and thuh Holy Spirit is possessin 'im reals good now! HALLELUJAH!

It is a fact, that I don't believe Hugh B. Brown's "fact." Even though Peterson quotes him as a truth.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
Post Reply