(December 27, 2018 at 5:28 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:(December 26, 2018 at 1:32 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: infidels.org? Oh, because that's a completely objective site? No thanks. Might as well send me a link to a scientology site. May get bits and pieces of facts, but too much nonsense to sift through.
Either I "did" or "did not" provide a reference in my statement, as per your accusation that "I did not." If you did not believe the reference was sufficient for your understanding, then you could've asked for more, but that doesn't mean I didn't provide a reference. Your disapproval of said reference is a separate issue though.
If I said you did not provide a reference in your last post, you would probably tell me that I was wrong because you cited a link to infidels.org. My disapproval of said site as a source is a separate issue.
And with that....DERP!
Thanks for demonstrating yet again, you are incompetent to discuss anything in the field. The site is irrelevant. The ONLY thing that matters is the content ... which you obviously lack the background to discuss. IF you did have a background and education in the field, you COULD have presented references that refute what I said about prophesy. You didn't ... and by that proved you are in this WAY over your head.
I know the site. I've used it plenty of times in the past. Also, what "field" are you referring to? There's no indication that you are even a part of any "field" to be considered an authority in it. I'm just supposed to assume you have some expertise in something because you are projecting it? Nope, not happening with me.
Content isn't the only thing that matters. If the content is flawed, then why use it?
Way over my head? How so? Like I said, I'll gladly stand in front of an unbiased panel with you present, and you are welcome to do your best to try and invalidate me. Nonsensical assertions mean jack.