"I think the Lord would say that that is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel."

OK, if you say so. If you think correcting one's use of a theological term, or simply suggesting that the correct spelling of the term be used, is guilty of that, then we will simply agree to respectfully disagree and let that be that. Personally, I'd call that being just a tad too sensitive (and that by proxy) but that's just me.

"Moreover: This doting about questions and strifes of words, according to (I Timothy 6), comes from men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth."

Not guilty.

"PS: What profit has come from your spelling correction? And if there is no profit - then that was what I was talking about!"

Of course, this very statement assumes the erroneous assertion I pleaded not guilty to above.

What I have done is not even remotely what the biblical verse is talking about. Suggesting accurate usage of theological terms, and doing so in a respectful manner, is in no way being guilty of "questions and strifes at words" and never has been.

"I wonder if you knew what Yamil was talking about. From your post, I assume you did."

My knowledge or understanding of the conversation is not even relevant to what I posted, as far as the theological term is concerned. As for the rest, I simply stated a personal disagreement with Yamil Luciano's analysis (which could be right or wrong).

"So then... why the need for the post?"

Simply because I desire accuracy in theological discussion, is why I posted.

"Were you trying to make Yamil's posts invalid because he didn't spell a word correctly?

No. In my opinion, Mike from PA is doing well enough discussing the issues on their own merits.

I suppose I'm still mystified as to why I deserve a rebuke for simply offering a correction, that is all. How is this "striving about words to no profit?"

If I understood your initial post of rebuke to me, you rebuffed my suggestion of the word "eisegesis" which was not even directed to you. Then you accuse me of having the mindset condemned by 1 Timothy 6, without so much as a please or thank you. Then I respond by denying your accusations and quoting a verse of Scripture which simply admonishes one to not refuse instruction but to gain understanding by hearing reproof. To which you respond by basically accusing me of not being a true believer or caring about the Word of God. Which is an insult, sir. Though at the moment, I do not care for your opinion.

And you accuse ME of being ungracious and unfair?

Wow.

Apologies. I did not know that. I thought eisegesis was the only correct spelling of the term. I see online that the prefix "iso" means equal, and that "eis" means into. So that is why I thought so.

All I did was try to correct Yamil Luciano and provide the proper theological term for his accusation against Mike (with which I disagree, by the way). So I am doing Yamil Luciano a service in that regard. In fact, I very respectfully disagreed with Yamil Luciano's analysis of Scripture and Mike's posts.

Yamil Luciano is certainly worthy of respect, if not agreement.

And now, MBL, I have a verse for you as well.

Romans 1:25 (NASB)
For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Good grief. At this rate, I'll be Amening everybody. Amen.

With all due respect, sir, I think the word you are looking for is 'eisegesis.'

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=eisegesis