Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Ok..... flying in for a ducky landing after circling the pond....... it may not be a perfect landing but I’ll try...
....in post 25 you indicated that the statement I quoted was not part of the content of the actual letter. In post 26 I argued that it was.... then you seemed to acknowledge it was but then said in the “letter itself” indicating Brother Lees statement was not part of the letter itself... throwing me off ...
Here is the point I am making......That the letter itself includes the statement about this being a matter of the ministry not the Lords recovery by Brother Lee. It is part of the letter itself since it is above the signatory of the letter. Therefore, I asked if your problem was that the letter itself is contradictory seeming to say two different things, that is, in the front part of the letter itself it says a matter of the Lord’s recovery... but in the latter part of the letter the statement by Brother Lee says not a matter of the Lords recovery.
The difference is meaningful.... if Brother Lees statement is not in the actual letter but only found elsewhere then the authors of the letter could have inadvertently or deliberately left out Brother Lees statement.... but if the authors included it in the body of the letter itself then Brother Lees statement must be taken as part of the definition of the letter since the authors took the time to include it juxtaposed next to their statement.
That is what I meant.
Drake
|
Ding! I understand now. Thanks.
I did not intend to indicate in post #25 that the statement you quoted was not part of the content of the actual letter. That was not my intention or position (as revealed by my confusion in the last post!) - I fully acknowledge from the get-go that the statement you quoted is part of the letter. I think I should have said something like "then ELSEWHERE in the letter" or "when compared to the OTHER contents of the letter" but just neglected to say that because it was obvious in my mind and isn't everyone else a mind-reader?
Yes, my problem is that the letter itself is contradictory seeming to say two different things. When one quote says "I don't mean x linked to z" but repeated throughout the letter is "x is linked to z", then that, in my eyes, is a problem. The one instance of "I am not talking about something
in the Lord's recovery" gets swallowed up by the repeated point that there must be one publication
in the Lord's recovery.