So you are the "Gregory Blunt" who wrote this "paper," but you are not the "Gregory Blunt" of the earlier "paper?" Maybe you will shed some light on this.It's a pretty major change. I did find a problem that no one had brought up to me.
Also, I have quotes from linguistics scholars to add to the lexical entries.
What's funny is that you constantly deflect when you are confronted with evidence of your mistakes. These frantic deflections appear to mark the boundary where you move from gross incompetence to intentional distortion.Why is someone who is impersonating someone else who is impersonating a guy who is 100s of years old trying to ask me who I am?
That's pretty funny, actually.
What's funny is that you constantly deflect when you are confronted with evidence of your mistakes. These frantic deflections appear to mark the boundary where you move from gross incompetence to intentional distortion.
I am asking you about your relationship to this "Gregory Blunt" because throughout our Hebrews 1 discussion you kept referring to a paper written by someone using that pseudonym and you claimed it was written by someone other than you. Here you have, by your own admission, made changes to a paper written by someone using the same moniker. You implied in your response that you are the co-author of this latest paper. It doesn't matter to me whether you clear all this up or not. The more you write, the more obvious it becomes that my initial read of the situation is the correct one.
It's an honest answer. I don't think it matters. As far as I know, it's not a litmus test for Calvinism, so I don't even understand why you think it's relevant. My familiarity with Calvinism is very basic and doesn't go much beyond TULIP. I disagree with all five of those points as they are most commonly explained.Now that's a deflection!