Sentences with phrase «not know the error»

I'll add one more point... many self - pubbed authors don't know those errors on the back cover are errors.

As many as one quarter of all credit reports contain errors — your lender won't know an error until you disprove it.

Not exact matches

«No one, not even the North Koreans, knows the CEP of the HS - 12,» Mike Elleman, the senior fellow for missile defense at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told Business Insider, referring to circular error probable, or the distance by which a missile can be expected to miss its target.

So, «I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings during the meeting,» or «I'm sorry we made an error but you knew we were short - staffed» is not making up any ground.

Verizon (vz) says it didn't know about Lanham's fraud and notified an FCC program administrator more than 10 years ago that it had received some E-rate funding in error.

But if you're not reviewing your statements each month, you could be paying for things you no longer use or you might miss billing errors that cost you money.

Brookings Institute researchers found that more than 20 % of Americans have a material error on their credit report that could affect their credit score — and many don't even know.

It's more of when you see it working without errors, even though you know the technology is not ready yet, but when you've seen it driving you for hours, you realize this is special.

Why build a car that commandeers the brakes and wheel if not to eliminate that pesky statistical variable known as «human error» — which is to say, the fallibility that makes us all kin?

I don't know who did what, but it was a huge huge error if they were getting — and I'm sure they were — communications and ignored them or sent them down.»

To say your purpose is to be a loving father is in error as that is the result of a belief or world view (I do not know you so that is an example)

Atheists don't treat him like god, so if there are errors in his theories, we don't say «well Darwin is All knowing and All wise, so it MUST be true».

Properly translate it did say there is no longer male AND female, but many translations have chosen to change it to male NOR female because they assume it is an error because it is not grammatically correct and is inconsistent with the rest of the passage.

For one I could point out 20 mispelling errors, «Mormonism» not a word, weird huh.I am a Mormon I do support Mitt and I did in 2008, but religion aside Mitt can get it done, and he has in the past!!!! Obama has failed the USA no doubt about that.Mitt's morals, family values is what America is on.Shame on the people who can't move past that, You (not me) voted on a black man for President and not a Mormon, turns out the Mormon Canidiate coud have changed the whole USA around cool huh.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, covenant - breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: 32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them.

You are right, Calvinists do have tremendous flaws in their theology but then so do we all and I have found through the years that it does not help to point out peoples flaws or errors as some are just downright unteachable and others are extremely zealous for what they know.

I don't like pointing out other Christians doctrinal errors as I know that this side of eternity I will never be completely right and it is not our duty to point out Christ's servants faults.

People who say there are errors don't actually know of any errors.

But my lack of understanding is not due to errors and contradictions,... as I grow spiritually I know I will learn more.

If so, how do you know that errors didn't creep in to the original manuscripts, especially since we don't have them to verify?

And again one by one — more vaguely it is true, yet all - inclusively — I call before me the whole vast anonymous army of living humanity; those who surround me and support me though I do not know them; those who come, and those who go; above all, those who in office, laboratory and factory, through their vision of truth or despite their error, truly believe in the progress of earthly reality and who today will take up again their impassioned pursuit of the light.

In my blog on Bobby Kennedy, I know I made one mistake, and at least two readers have written the editors (not me) to allege that I made another one, «a terrible error.»

I must concede this because regardless of my confidence in my reasoning, I can not know for certain and in order to maintain some smidgen of humility and intellectual integrity, I have to acknowledge the possibility of gross error on my part.

If you read the Bible you would know it is not God that made the errors it is man.

While condemning errors is no doubt easier (mea culpa) than proclaiming defined rectifying truths, it also graciously allows all other options save those being condemned; definitive positive statements do not.

To know the indefinite as that is not ignorance or error but genuine knowledge.

If we do not know what is there, how will we recognize error when we hear it?

(p. 111) So long as such an anti-war stance, with its own sort of heroic aspirations, does not, through the sorts of errors mentioned above, condemn or spit upon the more tangible heroic feelings stirred up by the real wars that inevitably will come (and thus demand, as C.S. Lewis put it, «long - faced» warriors even for just wars), and so long as it does not plug its ears against the geo - strategic and national considerations that must remain part of all politics, she would broadly endorse it, and would encourage all of us, whether theists or not, to yearningly quest for a world without war that we nonetheless know can never fully arrive.

Anecdotally, I know for a fact that numerous attempts have been made, not to convince him that there is a God, but merely to apprise him of the elementary errors that throng his arguments.

It is obvious you do not know the Bible, couple examples of your errors.

The second error is to suppose that there is no right (or rationally superior) answer to important moral questions on which people disagree, or that the right answer can only be known by blind faith, not by reason.

But if you ask them «Was the teaching that said the dark races are cursed were wrong and a mistake and an error» Answer is «No it was not an error, it was a teaching from God but God had a change and informed the Church» Very wrong teaching absolutely wrong an American teaching

I am not interested in the narrow issue of who was to blame, but in suggesting to you that the present crisis of faith and life in the Church is not an incidental confusion, but the culmination of a long, slow crisis of truth and error in theology, perhaps the greatest since the rise of Arianism, and that we may no longer refuse to admit it, and to meet it.

I think we know there are scribal errors in this bible of ours (no doubt from me)-- but I am yet to find a scribal error that changes the character of Jesus from what he claims to be to someone altogether different (ie: not the son of David or from Nazareth or hates Gentiles, etc) or changes his teachings from one thing to another (ie: we don't catch him stoning someone in adultery anywhere or cursing the roman guards for crucifying him).

But it is a capital error if such protesters argue, as often happens, according to the principle that I can personally do as I like, hence I should also let others do as they like, for if the other person does what he likes I can no longer do the same and act from the same situation which would obtain if the other had not acted.

I have admitted, and all Christians ought readily to admit, the imperfections and blemishes that mar the empirical church in its institutional embodiment; we can see the errors that have marked its history, and we know that not only individual members but the structures of the institution as well are far from being sinless.

I know it is a conveniant cop out to point to original scripture as being free from error since we do not have them anymore.

Following enactment of the French law disestablishing the Catholic Church in 1905 «06, Pope Pius X criticized «the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult» for giving rise to the «absolutely false,... most pernicious error» of the separation of church and state (Vehementer Nos, s. 3).

Yes, but to riff on Paul... if I know what it means to speak of the way of Cain, the error of Balaam, or the rebellion of Korah, but have not love, I am nothing.

If a believer holds to the Nicene Creed, we should not call them a heretic, no matter how strongly we believe they are in error on the details or on other non-essential doctrines.

I other words, if John the Mediocre's activities were recorded as they happened but Jane the Magnificent's activities didn't get written down for 5 years after the fact, then even with copy errors and such, John's docu.mentation may be more reliable even if the earliest known docu.ment is more recent that Jane's earliest.

You've made exactly the same error multiple times because you don't know the difference between «lost» and «loss».

I said: «If the Bible is not inerrant, then as I stated, how do you know where the errors end and the truth begins?»

If the bible is not without error, then how do we know which parts to accept as truth and which to reject as fiction?

If the Bible is not inerrant, then as I stated, how do you know where the errors end and the truth begins?

Ignoring your error in trying to insult me (you know that fallacy I bet), you do not consider historical docu ments about Jesus that coincide with archaeological evidence as evidence?

And they would not be forbidden by their faith to seek to discover whether God has revealed an error - free form in which people can know, love and serve him.

Obviously we can not share in these various Afro - Asiatic forms of religion nor can we remain indifferent to the fact that each of them, in its own way, should regard itself as being the equal of any other and should authorize its followers not to seek to discover whether God has revealed the perfect and definitive form, free from all error, in which he wishes to be known, loved, and served.

Seen sub specie aeternitatis, encouraging someone to believe that we don't really know what God thinks about sexuality, and that each of us must work it out for ourselves, and anyway it doesn't matter much as long as we do our recycling and volunteer at a homeless shelter, is as serious an error as telling them that God hates them because they have homosexual feelings.

In this manner the Teacher thrusts the learner away from him, precisely by serving as a reminder; only that the learner, in thus being thrust back upon himself, does not discover that he knew the Truth already, but discovers his Error; with respect to which act of consciousness the Socratic principle holds, that the Teacher is merely an occasion whoever he may be, even if he is a God.