Cynic

Zix's dream-babe?

"Wonderful, Merciful Savior" http://www.laymansperspective.com/Wonderfu.ram ***** A clip from "He leadeth me" (Twila Paris) http://www.worshipstore.com/lib/worshipmus...pd1673-1-04.ram

I just bought and began reading Exegetical Fallacies by D. A. Carson. Under “Common Fallacies in Semantics,” “The root fallacy,” Carson attacks the notion that agapa? and agap? mean “some special kind of love.” He does not endorse equating phile? and agapa? across their “entire range,” yet asserts “they enjoy substantial overlap.” His argument is rather strong. He notes that John 3:35 uses agapa? for the Father’s loving of the Son, while John 5:20 uses phile?. He also points out that agapa? is used in 2 Timothy 4:10 for Demas’ loving of the world, and that both agap? and agapa? appear in the Septuagint rendering of 2 Samuel 13:15. [Edited to replace "denote" with "mean" in the first paragraph, because a later section in Carson's book got me to conclude my use of "denote" was uninformed.] [This message was edited by Cynic on July 27, 2003 at 22:47.]

I like the instrumental stuff by the Wigtunes folks. Like this one: Be Thou My Vision

Twila Paris.

Mike, This forum is searchable. You will be unable to hide within the volume of your posts. **** Your words, from page 10 of this thread: "We don't know what got lost in this gap. There is no guarantee that God's written Word will survive man's abuse. The spiritual Word of God lives and abides forever, but it's written form can suffer all kinds of abuses, and there's no guarantee IF or WHEN God will restore that written Word." Your words, from the same post on page 10 of this thread: "Suppose for a minute that we have the originals, and that somehow we know for sure they are the originals. Great! How many people speak Aramaic out there? And how well can we trust you, those of you who do know Aramaic, to translate for us? And your Aramaic teachers? And the entire academic field of ancient languages? How much or the devil's influence reaches into the academic institutions of his world? How about a lot? How much power does the adversary have to bend and shape languages and cultures over the past 2000 years? A lot. He can bend and shape entire languages and cultures to render passages impotent of passing on the power. "Now un-supposed that we have the originals, but we have all the messing with the texts to add onto the adversary's messing with language and culture. This introduces many uncertainties into the traditional approach to Biblical research. Without that 1942 promise behind him, there's no way Dr could have plowed through all these uncertainties. God did it for him by revelation, AS he worked his 5-senses. Dr was the only one with that 1942 promise propelling him over the barricades. "What tradition has passed on to us was better than nothing, but subtly stripped of power. What God taught Dr and Dr taught us in writing is best." Your words, from page 18 of this thread: "If I had the time now I'd find the exact quote. Once we HAVE the Word, we can THEN see that it interprets itself 85-90% of the time. But, what about where we DON'T have the Word. There's no guarantee that it all survived the first century reprobate copyists and the second century persecutions, nor a guarantee that any lost or distorted portions would get derived or straightened out by working the portions that did get handed down relatively intact. "Dr did sometimes talk about the non-authoritativeness of the existing manuscripts, and he even occasionally mentioned that academic collection of fragments is neither authoritative nor complete." Your words, also from page 18 of this thread: "'The Scriptures,' as taught in PFAL, are an abstract entity. The originals have been lost. What we buy in stores or read in libraries or are taught in a class are APPROXIMATIONS. In some situations they will do us well, in others not. "I am very much bound to recognize an authority bigger than me: the PFAL writings. In every specific practical case, the same bounds you see in your "authoritative" scriptures, I see in PFAL or the KJV verses printed within. I cannot say anything I want; I'm bound to what is printed in PFAL, which is in most cases identical to KJV Bibles. "I am no longer bound to any theologians or scholars! Hallelujah! "What I am endeavoring to do here is NOT the 'same thing the adversary has attempted to do since the fall of man. Steal, kill and destroy God's Word. Get people to doubt God's Word and subsequently believe it is no longer valid.'" "Just the opposite, I'm saying that the small doubts that should have plagued every PFAL grad scholar (or near scholar) for decades are now gone. "God has not only given us an authoritative reissued set of His Words, but He ALSO has, from within these inspired PFAL writings, verified that the Biblical remnants we have had handed down to us WERE INDEED all along God's perfect Word, before being cut up with men's knives and thrown into the fire for 2000 years. "You seem bound to a theology that says God is forbidden to get anything in writing when it comes to these modern centuries. Your dogma cannot tolerate God's intervention to reissue any or all of His Word. Your dogma will not allow God to inspire perfect writing, even to assist His children as they try to sort through which theologians or scholars they can trust THIS decade to be their necessary middlemen to the ancient scriptures." [interestingly, in the next to the last paragraph above, it is PFAL writings you promote as means of verification of "Biblical remants."] Your words, from page 20 of this thread: "To rob us of the power the adversary has employed VERY SUBTLE changes and corruptions in the texts and in our understand. One word twisted here in the text, one cultural twist centuries ago there, one religious cultural bias in the reader here, all adding up to a text that can't help the reader over the hump in believing: "'...you mean it's Christ in ME TOO!? ...you mean ALL the things he did and greater!? ...you mean when I am weak than I TOO am strong?!' "When I say tattered I mean SPIRITUALLLY, not physically. Most of the scriptures have been successfully reconstructed, but then again, Eve had MOST of it right too!" ***** No matter how you plead, you're guilty as sh!t.

What do you care about verification, anyway, Mike? Your championing of PFAL and the false teacher V. P. Wierwille has involved denigrating English Bible versions, historical biblical texts and the doctrinal sufficiency of Scripture.

Mike wrote, "Your error in application, though, is that it was before 1998 (coming back to PFAL) that I did my verification work. In this work I did not see anything on free will, even though I looked hard. I supposed I was just not a good enough researcher and that it was in there somewhere." ***** Mike, If the above assertion is correct, your sloppily worded claim (quoted following this sentence) to having found biblical verification for PFAL is not possibly categorical of PFAL. "I accepted the Word Dr taught me from PFAL and in which I found verification from working my KJV in the good old days."

Mike, What I deem obvious about your view arises from what you have written. Your claim to have biblically verified PFAL is inconsistent with other of your assertions, such as: "How many people can find a passage in the Bible that talks about 'free will'? What Dr taught us about 'free will' and 'foreknowledge' and many other subjects cannot be traced in the Bible. Dr got those things by revelation, not by tracking them in the Bible. There are many other items like this that I may someday write a letter about, but here I will mention one more untrackable item." One does not both find biblical verification for PFAL teachings and hold that they were divinely revealed to Wierwille and are biblically untrackable.

Mike wrote, "No, I have not rejected God's Word. "I have rejected YOUR point of view." Mike also wrote, "I accepted the Word Dr taught me from PFAL and in which I found verification from working my KJV in the good old days. "I now accept the Word of God that has been freshly revealed to me in the PFAL writings." ***** Mike, You have presumptuously assumed the inspiration of PFAL--to which you have subordinated English Bible versions and historical biblical texts. In your presumption-laden spewings, you have even denied the doctrinal sufficiency of scriptural autographs. In a previous post on another thread you wrote: "How many people can find a passage in the Bible that talks about 'free will'? What Dr taught us about 'free will' and 'foreknowledge' and many other subjects cannot be traced in the Bible. Dr got those things by revelation, not by tracking them in the Bible. There are many other items like this that I may someday write a letter about, but here I will mention one more untrackable item." You obviously have not found, nor deem it necessary to find, biblical verification for what you have accepted as inspired and doctrinally authoritative from Wierwille. You are no defender of biblical theism. You're the raving theological scion of a megalomaniacal heretic. It is your view that is (quite proudly) idiosyncratic and arbitrary.. ***** ***** ***** "The debate between the two perspectives will eventually work down to the level of one's ultimate authority. The presuppositional apologist realizes that every argument chain must end, and must end in a self-authenticating starting point. If the starting point is not self-authenticating, the chain just goes on and on. Every worldview has its unquestioned and its unquestionable assumptions, its primitive commitments. Religious debate is always a question of ultimate authority." -- Greg L. Bahnsen, "At War With the Word: The Necessity of Biblical Antithesis."

Mike wrote, "Hurting another's chances to hear the Word because we have a private beef with God's messenger is a pretty arrogant position." ***** Mike, What a shamelessly hypocritical freak you are! You have undercut English Bible versions, biblical texts and the doctrinal sufficiency of Scripture, in favor of the self-fondling of your own sense of importance and the promotion of irrationally grandiose presuppositions about RV-lizard and false teacher V. P. Wierwille. You have rejected the Word.

If you're using Windows and Internet Explorer, Yoconsoft's PopupRemover should stop this stuff. It prevents sites from opening an additional IE window, and functions on a simple on-or-off basis (you don't have to block particular sites). The only popups Yoconsoft does not stop on my machine are the ones PalTalk churns out (you don't open IE to use PalTalk). Download.

"Mike, oh, he's only to be defended. Poor poor Mike. But the rest of us are soooooo mean and cruel and heartless and freakish for actually engaging him in conversation." You do build your little strawmen. I was not, of course, commenting about people being mean to Mike. I was being cynically (and real-damned) nasty. ***** I think the primary danger Mike wields is not one of getting people to join him in ga-ga-for-Wierwille land. It is more subtle. It lies in what Mike quite effectively elicits in his opponents by flaunting his grotesque presuppositions about Wierwille: A smug and exaggerated sense of how far they have traveled from the TWI premise about Wierwille and from Wierwille's false teachings.

Hang in there, Mike. These freaks deserve being psycho-polemically chained to you.

Zixar, You were correct, and will hang from my rope some other day. ***** From here: A noun clause may begin with an indefinite relative pronoun -that, what, whatever, who, which, whoever, whichever. A [sic] indefinite relative pronoun does not have an antecedent in its sentence. Example He told me what he wanted. ***** And from over there: WHAT IS A RELATIVE PRONOUN? Relative Pronouns link two shorter sentences together to form one longer sentence by allowing us to insert a relative clause (the second idea) inside of the main clause. A definite relative pronoun has an antecedent, something to which it refers. English example: I bought the car. The car was expensive. The car (which I bought) was expensive. "Which I bought" is the relative clause.

Zixar, I have found several websites indicating that whomever in "You may invite whomever you like to the party" is a relative pronoun.

"You may invite whomever you like to the party" does not contain a relative pronoun. The objective pronoun whomever, as used in that sentence, is not a relative pronoun. ***** From http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=relative_pronoun Definitions of relative pronoun: noun: a pronoun (as `that' or `which' or `who') that introduces a relative clause [here] referring to some antecedent. ***** Every relative pronoun is a pronoun, but not every pronoun is a relative pronoun in every usage. Without a relevant relative clause, the relevant pronoun is not relative.

I do see that the NASB and NIV use a noun rendering for the Greek.

I don't really do Greek, but the word profit in 1 Corinthians 12:7 is a verb, not a noun. It seems whoever would defend an idea that VP knew what he was talking about is going to have to try to sell the verb as a gerund. ***** From my downloaded copy of the Online Bible with Strong's numbers: But the manifestation of the Spirit is given (5743) to every man to profit withal (5723). 4851 sumphero soom-fer'-o from 4862 and 5342 (including its alternate); TDNT-9:69,1252; v AV-be expedient 7, profit 4, be profitable 3, bring together 1, be better 1, be good 1; 17 1) to bear or bring together 2) to bear together or at the same time 2a) to carry with others 2b) to collect or contribute in order to help 2c) to help, be profitable, be expedient 5723 Tense-Present See 5774 Voice-Active See 5784 Mood - Participle See 5796 Count-2549 [This message was edited by Cynic on April 04, 2003 at 20:57.]

Zixar, Your attempted counterexamples have not contained a relative pronoun.

Feliz aniversario, Kit!

Until seeing this one tonight, I don't think I had come across a sad license plate: WE MS MOM

Tried to post Happy Birthday in French, but it didn't take.

Joyeux anniversaire, Robi! (Hope Alta Vista did the translation right.)

Happy Birthday, Wacky!