MattTooFor
Could you please ell me the exact words the disciples were saying 'in tongues' in Acts 2?
Could you please ell me the exact words the disciples were saying 'in tongues' in Acts 2?
Has the gift of speaking in tongues ceased? - Tim Conway
- Thread starter Marano
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M
MattTooFor
Guest
Wow.
"Instruction in righteousness" for the unsaved...is "instruction for salvation"...which is what evangelism is: Showing people how to obtain salvation. You can't contradict the Bible - LOL.
I'm not "redefining" anything. I'm quoting scripture. The Bible has defined the subject of evangelism...otherwise known as "instruction in righteousness".
Again, to the unsaved..."instruction in righteousness" is the same as evangelism.
Another of your dishonest twists. They didn't just "draw" attention. They weren't juggling and riding unicycles. They were preaching ("declaring") the Word. In other words (the words of 1 Timothy 3:16), they were "instructing in righteousness".
One can assume the Holy Spirit was giving then strategic scriptures to convey...which would shepherd these lost souls closer to salvation. To suggest, as you have repeatedly...that we don't know whether the tongues-speakers merely made random, wrenched-out-of-context and therefore meaningless references to, say, "talking donkeys"...is silly, obnoxious, intellectually dishonest, and sacrilegious.
G
GaryA
Guest
My two cents:
Even if I do not 100% completely and totally agree with presidente on this issue ( albeit, we agree on many / most things - as far as I can tell ), I like his approach much better than that of MattTooFor.
MattTooFor:
You need to learn how to not get "all bent out of shape" when you discuss whatever topic of the thread you post in. Stop "targeting" other people and stick to what is actually being discussed. If you want to criticize what they are saying ( as a "world-view" ) - fine. Just don't criticize them - as a person. Keep the discussion centered on the subject matter. Throwing mud does not help your case. Also, stop assuming that every "example" someone gives is intended to be directed at you as indicating that you are "living out" that example. Much / Most of the time, an "example" is intended to make a point -- not, claim it is you that it is talking about...
The way I see it:
[TABLE="width: 750"]
[TR]
[TD]presidente[/TD]
[TD]"calm, cool, and collected"[/TD]
[TD]explaining "in detail" from the perspective of individual trees in the forest[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MattTooFor[/TD]
[TD]"all over the place"[/TD]
[TD]explaining "in general" from the perspective of the whole forest[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
You guys are not quite on the same page...
Just sayin'...
feedm3 is correct in that the word 'perfect' means "complete, full of age, mature"; however, it is not talking about the canon of scripture. The phrase "that which is perfect" in verse 10 has to be interpreted in view of verses 8-12. It is talking about "mature understanding" - and the point in time when it reaches its "full maturity" - "which just happens to be" at the second coming of Christ. It is not talking about Christ Himself.
Verses 9-12 are an "aside" to verse 8 - and have nothing whatsoever [directly] to do with "spiritual gifts" - and it is [highly] focused on the understanding we have 'now' versus 'then':
The phrase 'we know in part' in verse 9 is referring to what we now know ('understand') by "experience"...
The phrase 'we prophesy in part' in verse 9 is referring to what we now know ('understand') by "faith"...
Verse 10:
"But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."
(At this point you should keep in mind that both 'we know' and 'we prophesy' are "in part"...)
'when that which is perfect is come' => "when we have 'full' and 'complete' understanding"
'that which is in part shall be done away' => "there will be no need of [the other]"
Verse 11 is an illustration about "full [mature] understanding" (and should be fairly self-explanatory).
Verse 12:
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
The word 'glass' in this verse is not referring to "window pane glass", but rather, a mirror.
For reference:
For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: ~ James 1:23
The first part of verse 12 is comparing "a dimly seen reflection" (a [not-so-clearly-seen] face in a mirror) to "the real thing" (actual 'face to face' - very clearly seen).
'For now we see through a glass, darkly' => "for now, we can only see a dim reflection"
'but then face to face' => "but then, we will be able to truly understand"
'now I know in part' => "now I have a 'limited' understanding"
'but then shall I know even as also I am known' => "then I will have a 'full', 'complete', and 'clear' understanding"
Now - for a moment - go back to verse 8:
"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away."
'whether there be prophecies, they shall fail'
This is not talking about "prophecy not coming true" - but rather, that [prophecy itself] will "go away" because it will be no longer needed (or meaningful) - then.
'whether there be tongues, they shall cease'
In like fashion - "tongues" will "go away" because it will be no longer needed (or meaningful) - then.
'whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away'
In like fashion - "the present knowledge" will "go away" because it will be no longer needed (or meaningful) - then.
Love (Charity), however, will continue 'forever'...
(while [the current / present] 'prophecies', 'tongues', and 'knowledge' will not)
Now - go to verse 13:
"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."
The word 'abideth' in this verse means "to remain" or "to endure"...
This verse is saying, in part, that 'faith', 'hope', and 'charity' are the [current / present] things that "remain and endure"- even until then.
This whole passage (chapter 13) is saying - in effect:
"Keep your focus on Love (Charity) - because it is what will endure ([the other stuff] will not) - and without it [the other stuff] is essentially meaningless - and it is the greatest thing (in all of this) that you should strive for, above all else - because it exists / operates / works { and endures} above all else."
The following is based on an observation I have made in this thread...
Even if I do not 100% completely and totally agree with presidente on this issue ( albeit, we agree on many / most things - as far as I can tell ), I like his approach much better than that of MattTooFor.
MattTooFor:
You need to learn how to not get "all bent out of shape" when you discuss whatever topic of the thread you post in. Stop "targeting" other people and stick to what is actually being discussed. If you want to criticize what they are saying ( as a "world-view" ) - fine. Just don't criticize them - as a person. Keep the discussion centered on the subject matter. Throwing mud does not help your case. Also, stop assuming that every "example" someone gives is intended to be directed at you as indicating that you are "living out" that example. Much / Most of the time, an "example" is intended to make a point -- not, claim it is you that it is talking about...
The way I see it:
[TABLE="width: 750"]
[TR]
[TD]presidente[/TD]
[TD]"calm, cool, and collected"[/TD]
[TD]explaining "in detail" from the perspective of individual trees in the forest[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MattTooFor[/TD]
[TD]"all over the place"[/TD]
[TD]explaining "in general" from the perspective of the whole forest[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
You guys are not quite on the same page...
Just sayin'...
Now you are clarifying 'to the unsaved..."instruction in righteousness" is the same as evangelism'. This no longer has much to do with our discussion. If you define 'evangelism' broadly enough, then you shouldn't have a problem with modern tongues and interpretation, either, so it becomes a mute point.
G
GaryA
Guest
I understand what you are saying, Matt; however, it is not "mainstream" definition-and-understanding -- "instruction in righteousness" is what happens for born-again Christians after they are saved - and, [ basically ] means nothing to the unsaved. As a rule, the unsaved to not need "instruction in righteousness" ( yet ); rather, what they need is to recognize and accept their 'depravity' - and their need for a savior. For you to include this in the definition of "instruction in righteousness" only "clouds the water"...
You definitely seem to be trying to broaden the definitions so that you do not have to focus on the specifics...
Just sayin'...
M
MattTooFor
Guest
That's your job. The Bible instructs you (an instruction which you steadfastly ignore) to give a reason for the beliefs you have.
On my part, I already gave evidence...in pointing to the obvious dearth of evidence. And the hue and cry coming from huge numbers of disillusioned, demoralized Charismatics/Pentecostals...is Exhibit A. Or...maybe Exhibit Y. (I have a bunch of other exhibits.)
I gave you an opportunity to provide evidence and you failed miserably (with this silly "lady lurching out of a wheelchair" thing). It is extremely irresponsible of you to be peddling this nonsense.
And apparently you don't have a clue about Internet research (or you're pretending so): I don't have to look through all 800 million YouTubes to find "miracle videos" (if such actually existed). That's what a search engine is for. Frankly, I don't think you're that dumb. Just dishonest.
Did I have to look through all 25 trillion pages of the Internet to find evidence for 9/11? Uh, no. I just typed into the search engines and presto...a compelling mini-doc of 15 minutes length pops up...coming from a website endorsed by 3000 credentialed architects and engineers. I didn't, by the way, fail to notice your snarky comments about 9/11 and such. I'm just ignoring the vast bulk of your silly 'ad hominem' snarking nonsense.
Anyway, by way of tangent (your tangent) I'd love to see you rebut 3000 credentialed architects and engineers. This one website, AE911Truth.org has a standing $10,000 offer to any other credentialed expert willing to defend the official government position on 9/11. They don't need to win the debate. Just show up. But...no takers.
Spend 15 minutes and watch this little video. Then get back to me with a devastating rebuttal. I double-dare ya':
[video=youtube;PqFOXe_d-x4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqFOXe_d-x4[/video]
I have. From the Bible. The Bible doesn't instruct me to look at all YouTube videos.
Show me the verses where it says miracles have or will cease. I have pointed you to I Corinthians 12 which says that the Spirit gives to one this gift and to another another gift. The working of miracles is in that list.
And you are saying mean things about a woman who was in a wheelchair for 20 years. If she had a bit of trouble walking after 20 years, but could still walk after prayer, you should praise God for that.
What is wrong with you?
First of all, yes you do if you are arguing that no evidence exists on YouTube. You are in the same position as the atheist who insists that he knows for sure there is no evidence for God, when he hasn't experienced a millionth of a percent of the universe, and rejects the evidence for God in front of him. If you haven't searched all of YouTube, you can't say there is no evidence for miracles on YouTube.
And again
Rudeness. Being obnoxious. Do you go around calling people dishonest in real life, or just when you are hiding behind a CPU. There are some parts of Appalachia where if you go around calling people liars, you'll get punched in the face, and probably out west, too. Are you this rude in real life?
I am not in a location and situation where I can check out your video. But I haven't read anything from you that I recall about your having any beliefs about 9/11 conspiracy theories. I do find it entertaining in conversations like this, or sermons to, when someone hits on something really specific that hits home with another individual. You could consider the possibility of divine providence. At the very least, you should pay attention.
I'm a little suspicious of the moon landing, mainly because it kind of makes sense, with all the deception during the Cold War, that the government might lie about something so expensive and wasteful rather than to actually do it. The technology to do that was also similar to missile technology, and convincing the Russians and everyone else they could do it might have the same impact as the moon landing. But I'm not absolutely convinced that it was a conspiracy. There have been real conspiracies.
Some of the conspiracy theory 'logic' just isn't quite there for some of those videos that I have seen.
M
MattTooFor
Guest
Wait a minute -- if you're self-righteously 'pre-supposing' it is inappropriate to ever lay a complaint of untruthfulness at your feet...would it be OK if I self-righteously pre-suppose it is inappropriate to ever lay a complaint of "obnoxious" at my feet? I don't think you've thought this through very well.
Yes, I see a huge pattern of twisting, tweaking, wrenching, bending, massaging, evading. After a lifetime (is it?) of defending the indefensible...sadly, this is what happens, I believe. The Pentecostal/Charismatic fiasco is a HUGE "professional wrestling" / snipe-hunting 'dog-and-pony show' disaster. A huge tragedy which leaves innumerable masses of disillusioned, demoralized, defeated, and heartbroken Pentecostal and Charismatic parishioners in its wake.
Yes, you tried to brush past the fact the tongues-speakers were conveying "instruction in righteousness"...as though they weren't speaking at all. You've put forward that fudged description numerous times...trying to downplay that the tongues-speakers were preaching ("declaring").
Mark Driscoll, and Mars Hill was charismatic Reformed. And of course, all the satellite churches all over North America. Sadly, he was found to be abusive as a pastor, plagiarized books, and the whole Mars Hill edifice collapsed and many walked away from God.
Well, what's the point of this comment in relation to what's being discussed? I don't know that Mark Driscoll is 'Charismatic', btw. He is 'continuationist.' So is John Piper. I don't think either of them were ever a part of the 'Charismatic movement' per se.
You accused me of dishonesty for saying that tongues drew the attention of the crowd and that Peter preached. If you are sane, and you actually see the words on the page, then you must think very little of accusing someone of being dishonest. I don't. Slander is a sin. Satan is the accuser of the brethren.
And yes, it is obnoxious, unpleasant, disagreeable, to accuse people of dishonesty over things that are obviously not dishonest.
if you don't have anything of substance to say to support your position, you can say nothing at all. You do not have to restort to accusing me or preachers who pray for the sick.
Again, if you want to have a civil, adult conversation, we can do so. Otherwise, lets call it quits.
M
MattTooFor
Guest
Notice the self-serving presumption. Just amazing. Wow. Yes, I believe you were fudging. I actually believe that. And I see you fudging here yet again. You say I accuse you of dishonesty for "saying tongues drew the attention of the crowd". That's another tweak. Another twitch. You didn't originally refer to "tongues" in the statement I was complaining about. You just said they "drew the crowd"...without mentioning any speaking at all. You were trying to de-emphasize that the tongues-speakers were actually preaching ("declaring"). It's fudging. It's shaving the facts. And here you've done it yet again...by adding back in a belated reference to "tongues". Yes, it's exasperating.
Oh my goodness - the slander, the libel, the defamation.
Fella, this isn't a debate about what is on the pages of Scripture. It's a debate about what you're (falsely) claiming is going on out there in the world. I'm simply saying there are no Jesus-style miracles going on. There's no evidence. I'm challenging you to produce the evidence. That's what the Scriptures instruct you to do.
You claim there are ongoing miracles and tongues-speaking. Produce the evidence. So far, you remain in disobedience to the Bible. You're not producing reason and evidence for your beliefs and claims of modern-day miracles and signs.
You're sending people on a 'snipe hunt'. You're telling us to go the the bottom of the hill with a broom and a grocery bag and then you are going to chase the snipes over the hill and then we should sweep the snipes into the grocery bag. But there ARE no "snipes".
Or if there are snipes (AKA Pentecostal signs and miracles)...produce the proof. This has nothing to do with the pages of Scripture for the moment.
Folks who go off on an intellectually honest quest to discover the alleged world of Charismatic/Pentecostal supernatural phenomena...end up hurt and disillusioned...as any number of threads here at CC attest to. People like you are, in effect, mistreating folks. Your false doctrines are abusive.
Researching the world via an Internet search engine which accesses the entire Internet...is not comparable to an atheist who can't examine a trillionth of the universe.
First of all, if there were an emerging phenomenon of a bona fide "healer" (or "healers" plural), news would spread like wildfire through the Charismatic world. Then it would spread to People magazine, 60 Minutes, and the rest of the media.
It simply is not accurate to say one cannot effectively research the world to a reasonable degree. In the current Information Age, the world is blanketed with a connected network of millions and billions of observers. Not so for the universe. To say you can't research things to a reasonable degree in this world and in the age of the Internet...is just nonsense.
God did not play 'hide-and-seek' with Jesus-style miracles in the early days...thus, I reasonably assume He would not play 'hide-and-seek' in the modern-day. And yet...I have asked Charismatic/Pentecostal aficionados to scour the world via the Internet and YouTube...and produce even a scintilla of evidence...as I did with you. And...you guys have produced zip/zero/zilch evidence.
I have said this before -- notice there are exactly zero Charismatic/Pentecostal believers here at CC who are happily practicing a "gift of prophecy"...blessing each other's socks off with eye-popping 'divine insights' into each other's lives:
"Hey, the Lord told me in a vision, take that job offer, cancel your 2nd mortgage loan application, and tell your daughter to buy the 2010 Prius she is looking at!"
None of that is happening because the gift of prophecy no longer exists. So I have preliminarily concluded. Unless you can take a break from chiding and chastising me for not accepting your "bus accident" story...and produce some demonstration and/or proof.
Again, amazingly insincere and dishonest nonsense. I am merely using some descriptiveness. The woman isn't here to take offense. Sheer baloney. Good grief. And yes, she did "lurch". Ridiculous, dishonest misdirection on your part.
I sort of don't blame you: I wouldn't want to talk about the fact I had tried to present this bizarre lurching episode as a Jesus-style "ZAP miracle" either...if I were you.
As I said, I gave you the run of the entirety of YouTube Worldwide to cherry-pick the best evidence. But you only proved my point...that there is no evidence. You have thus failed to "give a reason" for your beliefs and aggressive assertions...that there are supposedly ongoing Jesus-style miracles.
And yes, I have serious questions about the veracity of some aspects of the woman's story...even apart from the fact it doesn't come within a million miles of a Jesus-style miracle. But that's where Classic Pentecostalism kicks in...with charges of being "mean" and "nasty" etc.
MattTooFor,
I got curious and clicked the link under your post. You wrote this web page right? I've actually seen this before. I think I even posted on it once.
Man, that article about Michael W. Smith is a prime example of conspiracy theory reasoning-- the lack of logical steps between jumps of reasoning. 'Runic' and New Age 'runes' aren't the same thing. Runic is the name given to a number of alphabets used in Germanic languages before the Latin alphabet became the standard. 'Rune' can mean either these letters, or whatever it is New Agers use the term to mean. The runic alphabet isn't evil. If Michael W. Smith's producers art director used a couple of runic letter shapes that look like English letters, that doesn't make anyone evil or occultic. If the photographer had him stand shaped like runic-looking letters, that is not some secret hint that he is into the occult. And it is also unlikely that he does his own artwork for his albums anyway.
So you didn't produce any evidence that this singer was a part of the occult, but you don't have a problem dragging the guy's name through the mud
All this illustrates is really poor conspiracy theory style reasoning. These are really loose pieces of 'evidence' strung together to form some kind of conspiracy theory. And then you are dragging a man's name through the mud to do it.
Again, slander is a sin. You shouldn't drag a man's name through the mud based on non-evidence like this. And if you have some real evidence against him, present it, not this bad conspiracy theory reasoning.
And you apply this loose conspiracy theory reasoning to the text of Acts 2, also, reading your theory into the text and treating it like a fact. And you are also pretty free about throwing accusations my way and in the direction of a preacher who prays for the sick.
I'd advise you to pray about the Spirit of power, love, and of a sound mind, and to refrain from slandering people. Your standard of proof and your standard for accusing the brethren isn't righteous. You need to pray about that. [/FONT]
I got curious and clicked the link under your post. You wrote this web page right? I've actually seen this before. I think I even posted on it once.
Man, that article about Michael W. Smith is a prime example of conspiracy theory reasoning-- the lack of logical steps between jumps of reasoning. 'Runic' and New Age 'runes' aren't the same thing. Runic is the name given to a number of alphabets used in Germanic languages before the Latin alphabet became the standard. 'Rune' can mean either these letters, or whatever it is New Agers use the term to mean. The runic alphabet isn't evil. If Michael W. Smith's producers art director used a couple of runic letter shapes that look like English letters, that doesn't make anyone evil or occultic. If the photographer had him stand shaped like runic-looking letters, that is not some secret hint that he is into the occult. And it is also unlikely that he does his own artwork for his albums anyway.
So you didn't produce any evidence that this singer was a part of the occult, but you don't have a problem dragging the guy's name through the mud
All this illustrates is really poor conspiracy theory style reasoning. These are really loose pieces of 'evidence' strung together to form some kind of conspiracy theory. And then you are dragging a man's name through the mud to do it.
Again, slander is a sin. You shouldn't drag a man's name through the mud based on non-evidence like this. And if you have some real evidence against him, present it, not this bad conspiracy theory reasoning.
And you apply this loose conspiracy theory reasoning to the text of Acts 2, also, reading your theory into the text and treating it like a fact. And you are also pretty free about throwing accusations my way and in the direction of a preacher who prays for the sick.
I'd advise you to pray about the Spirit of power, love, and of a sound mind, and to refrain from slandering people. Your standard of proof and your standard for accusing the brethren isn't righteous. You need to pray about that. [/FONT]
MattTooFor
Here is what I wrote,
'They' refers to 'tongues' in the previous sentence.
Again, if you can have a conversation like a rational, civil adult, we can talk. Otherwise, you can direct your antics elswhere.
Here is what I wrote,
'They' refers to 'tongues' in the previous sentence.
Again, if you can have a conversation like a rational, civil adult, we can talk. Otherwise, you can direct your antics elswhere.
M
MattTooFor
Guest
You need to follow your own advice - LOL. This is like the sixth time you've said this. I will continue to comment on threads in which I have interest. I'm not keeping an eye out for your 'advisories'. My goodness. The presumption is so odd.
M
MattTooFor
Guest
"Runic" is not a "name given to a number of alphabets" - LOL! The word "runic" is an adjective, not a noun. One could refer to a "runic letter". And a "runic letter" would be what is called a Rune. I would dare say you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. Is it because your Pentecostal doctrines have been taken to the woodshed here...that you're now snarking over my blogs? Good grief. You need a hobby. Or maybe a puppy? Here you go, guy. Enjoy. I named him "Matty":
Acts 4, 31 is no proof for that what many teach as an 2nd baptism with proof to speaking in tongues ( since ad 1900)
Indeed be filled with the Holy Spirit is something different and not a one time thing. But it has nothing to do with the 2nd baptism with the Holy Spirit!
M
MattTooFor
Guest
Whether or not there was or wasn't a misunderstanding over your comments (as you're claiming) there simply is no shortage of these fibs and fudges on your part. If you want to discount one fibbing/fudging incident...then with you, 12 more fibs immediately take it's place. Case in point, your above comment.
You announce it is Smith's "art director" who decided to use the runic letters. Obviously, you're begging the question. And...an obvious begging of the question is a form of dishonesty.
You jump to the conclusion Smith had nothing to do with his body position and that the "photographer" did this? Again, an obnoxious 'begging of the question'...a form of dishonesty. And remember -- you're trying to build a defamatory case against me, using this "question-begging"...which makes your dishonesty all the more egregious.
You don't even bother to carefully read through my blog before you slander me with an accusation that I'm dragging someone's name through the mud. And even worse, the irony that directly below your dishonest question-begging comment, the title of my writing "friend or foe or worse?"...which is clearly indicating I am taking care only to ask a question and NOT jump to a conclusion. Again, more dishonesty on your part. Stretching, twisting, warping, fudging. Sadly, it's your M.O.
Believe me - I could go through your last five posts directed to me...and find at least a couple dozen examples of dishonesty. It's amazing.
You sure have that right.
Amen, brother. Preach it.
Good grief. The silliness.
Thats tongue speaking has not stopped we will find in many cults and among pagans. The question is Who is behind and gives them this ability?
It doesn't matter. Runic letters are letters of an alphabet (or of several different alphabets.) Roman letters were used to write pagan stories like the Aeneid, but you still use them. Modern Wiccans use those letters, and so do you. Are you occultic?
Insinuating the man is occultic for using letters of an alphabet, because the etymology of the word for the alphabet means 'secret, is rather foolish.
You use conspiracy theory reasoning and are quick to accuse. I have had conversations with dozens of people on this forum who disagree with me, and it doesn't degenerate into the type of nonsense.
I don't know, and I don't care. The conclusions in your article remind me of the scenes from the movie 'A Beautiful Mind' where the actor playing Nash, who was dealing with mental illness, was going through supposed patterns in how letters were arranged in magazines, thinking they held secret codes involved in the cold war. Since you don't consider asking questions to be dragging someone's name through the mud, I'll ask you, have you ever seen a doctor for mental illness?
Also, if you don't think it's possible to drag someone's name through the mud by asking a question, you shouldn't mind if someone dug through your website, found out your name and figured out a way to get a picture of you legally, and then put up a big billboard on the freeway near where you lived with a big picture of your face that says, "Does this man molest children"? Hey, it's just a question, right?
I knew a guy when I was in college who was in a band that made music, he said, 'from a Christian world view.' He said he was in some city in Tennesee, where ever Michael W. Smith lived, and fired bottle rockets over his house. I asked him why he did that. What did he have against Michael W. Smith. He said he didn't like his music. But what you are doing could do a lot more damage to this man did, keeping this website up about him for years and years asking if he's a 'foe' just because he happens to have a couple of letters that look like letters from the old Scandinavian alphabet.
As far as 'runic' goes, it's an adjective. 'Runic aphabet' is a proper use of the term. You are nit picking over grammar and just being a smart alec again.
Wikipedia's entry for runes says:
Runes (Proto-Norse: [FONT="]ᚱᚢᚾᛟ[/FONT] (runo), Old Norse: rún) are the letters in a set of related alphabets known as runic alphabets, which were used to write various Germanic languages before the adoption of the Latin alphabet and for specialised purposes thereafter.
Last edited: