Is PLAF theopneustos, god-breathed?

[Mike]

7 minutes ago, So_crates said:

Or don't stretch the language too far, because it'll snap back like a rubber band

That was very easy to understand and get the right idea. I give VPW the poetic license to say it that way. If he liked the word "parallel" there it's because that communicated the message to him. He communicated the idea well to all of us using his vocabulary. We were taught God uses the man's vocabulary to communicate.

[So_crates]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

 

 

 

I was wrong. Most of the “parallel” usages are still there, but with 2 explanations given in

PFAL on pages 19,20:

“If we are going to tap the resources for the more

abundant life, we must not only know what is available,

how to receive it, and what to do with it; but we

must also get our needs and wants parallel. If our

needs are light and our wants are heavy, we are not

balanced. If our wants are light and our needs are

heavy, we will never get an answer. When we believe,

we get results in prayer if our needs and our wants are

equal.”

I did not understand where that link was from.

 

So the error of saying paralell remains.

What happened to God has a reason to everything he says where he says it..

[So_crates]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

That was very easy to understand and get the right idea. I give VPW the poetic license to say it that way. If he liked the word "parallel" there it's because that communicated the message to him. He communicated the idea well to all of us using his vocabulary. We were taught God uses the man's vocabulary to communicate.

You would. There's nothing poetic about it. It's an error he said from go and stayed in despite all those proofreaders whose goals were perfection.

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, So_crates said:

So the error of saying paralell remains.

What happened to God has a reason to everything he says where he says it..

That is not an error. Not in the least. Sorry. God uses VPW's vocabulary there.

[So_crates]

Just now, Mike said:

That is not an error. Not in the least. Sorry. God uses VPW's vocabulary there.

So your saying God made the error?

[Mike]

Just now, So_crates said:

So your saying God made the error?

I'm saying YOU made an error in labeling that passage in error.

If you want to make the case, in the face of what I already stated, but in my book that is not an error. That's language. So far you have not convinced me.

[So_crates]

Just now, Mike said:

I'm saying YOU made an error in labeling that passage in error.

No, YOU made the error by claiming it wasn't an error.

Just now, Mike said:

If you want to make the case, in the face of what I already stated, but in my book that is not an error. That's language.

It's not language. You've heard two Buckeyes tell you they've never heard it used like that. Yet you insist it was.

 

Just now, Mike said:

So far you have not convinced me.

Dude, God himself could come down from heaven and tell you it was an error and you still wouldn't be convinced.

 

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, So_crates said:

So your saying God made the error?

I'm saying God is capable and allowed of condescending to anyone's personal vocabulary. Would you try to forbid Him? Or would you insist on God communicating only with the King's English? I really don't need to know your answer here. Tell God.

[waysider]

23 minutes ago, Mike said:

how about "un-loosed" ?

 

Unloosed I have heard, especially in more rural communities.

[So_crates]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

I'm saying God is capable and allowed of condescending to anyone's personal vocabulary. Would you try to forbid Him? Or would you insist on God communicating only with the King's English? I really don't need to know your answer here. Tell God.

A vocabulary two Buckeyes have never heard used in that manner? Sure. 

Would God use words in an unconventional fashion? I don't need to know your answer. Tell God.

Edited January 25, 2018 by So_crates

[Raf]

34 minutes ago, Mike said:

That book was written by committee. I think some chapters had several people working on it. I personally knew a few of them. I lived with two of them.

Has anyone seen the goalpost? I mean, it was JUST HERE like a second ago!

[Mike]

1 minute ago, waysider said:

Unloosed I have heard, especially in more rural communities.

Me too.

Did you ever have a hard time understanding needs and wants parallel?

Me neither.

[So_crates]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

Me too.

Did you ever have a hard time understanding needs and wants parallel?

Me neither.

I did but I was one of those grads that didn't say anything. I hoped it be explained later.

[Mike]

1 minute ago, Raf said:

Has anyone seen the goalpost? I mean, it was JUST HERE like a second ago!

I'm SURE we discussed committee written books 10 years ago.

[waysider]

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

Me too.

Did you ever have a hard time understanding needs and wants parallel?

Me neither.

Actually, yes I did. Just as much as I had a hard time understanding the difference between all without distinction and all without exception.

Edited January 25, 2018 by waysider
missing words

[Mike]

1 minute ago, So_crates said:

I did but I was one of those grads that didn't say anything. I hoped it be explained later.

I'll bet you got it soon, like within the 2nd hearing of the class. That just wasn't a difficult idea being taught.

[So_crates]

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

I'll bet you got it soon, like within the 2nd hearing of the class. That just wasn't a difficult idea being taught.

I'm glad you know what goes on in my mind and everyone elses.

This may suprise you, but I didn't understand it until Skyrider or Waysider told me it was "balanced".

That's why the error sticks out so graphicly in my mind.

Edited January 25, 2018 by So_crates

[Mike]

Just now, waysider said:

Actually, yes I did. Just I had a hard time understanding the difference between all without distinction and all without exception.

THAT one bothered me a lot. I finally cracked that nut (I think) a little while ago. Hint: it has to do with God using the man's vocabulary again. This one is interesting, and I offered to explain it weeks ago. No takers. Want to hear it?

I'm limited on time, but I'll be back.

[waysider]

So, if I hand you a snake and tell you it's a stone, that shouldn't be a problem. Amiright?

[So_crates]

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

THAT one bothered me a lot. I finally cracked that nut (I think) a little while ago. Hint: it has to do with God using the man's vocabulary again. This one is interesting, and I offered to explain it weeks ago. No takers. Want to hear it?

I'm limited on time, but I'll be back.

You still haven't finished the paralell error.

Edited January 25, 2018 by So_crates

[Mike]

Just now, So_crates said:

I'm glad you know what goes on in my mind and everyone elses.

This may suprise you, but I didn't understand it until Skyrider or Waysider told me it was "balanced".

That's why the error sticks out so graphicly in my mind.

That does surprise me. There were, and still are, mystery areas in the class for me, and I was certainly not the one who specialized in "receiving" BUT that section on needs and wants was very easy for me and whenever I taught it in twig it was easy.

[Twinky]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

The more obvious and adversarial the set-up question is that’s hurled at me, the more set-up in my answer my poetic license will easily allow.

Translation: "The more obvious and adversarial the set-up question is that’s hurled at me, the wriggle room I need."

[Mike]

Just now, So_crates said:

You still haven't finished the paralell error.

I think the ball is in your court. You have not convinced me it was an error. It was VPW's vocabulary, and it communicated to me very well. If you are going to focus on "errors" like this you'll lose my interest.

[So_crates]

23 minutes ago, Mike said:

I think the ball is in your court. You have not convinced me it was an error.

Like I said God himself couldn't convince you of the error.

After all, if there's an error your whole God-breathe theory is kapuit.

With me it's kapuit.

Remember, your the one with the assertations:

1. That PLAF is God-breathe.
2. That "Parallel" used in PLAF is not an error.

Its your job to convince me.

You haven't.

23 minutes ago, Mike said:

It was VPW's vocabulary, and it communicated to me very well.

And who made how it was communicated to you the standard? You have two Buckeyes telling you they've never heard "parallel" used in the way you claim.

 

23 minutes ago, Mike said:

If you are going to focus on "errors" like this you'll lose my interest.

Aren't we full of ourselves? What makes you think I care whether or not I keep your interest?

Edited January 26, 2018 by So_crates

[waysider]

Even if we allow you the see saw example, they are NEVER parallel. They are either coincidental or intersecting.

 

edit: This is grade school level math here. I thought the guy had a doctorate.

Edited January 26, 2018 by waysider