WordWolf

Larry Abbott Eugene Grizzard Dr Doug Ross

Should tell them you're being sneaky. This was "The DeadPool," combining "DeadPool" (now in theaters) with "the Dead Pool", a Dirty Harry movie.

I saw neither the movie nor television series of "THE DEAD ZONE."

Try not to confuse "disagreeing" with "negative posts" with "personal attacks." Personal attacks overstep the discussion of the subject, and get into a meta-discussion about the other posters. Disagreeing is a natural consequence of discussion. If you're supposedly answering a question, and your reply doesn't address the question, other people may point that out-which is not necessarily negative. "I don't see how this follows logically." -Either it doesn't, or your communication was not sufficient to show that person how it IS logical. (It's possible, but less common, for the person to be impenetrable to logic, but that wasn't the case here.) So, lay it out again, clearer. This should result in one of 3 things, each of which have happened here, at different times: A) the logic is shown to be flawed B) the logic is demonstrated to be sound and is easier to understand C) the asker is demonstrated to be wasting everyone's time That last one was the hallmark of a few posters. My comment was "negative" but was no "attack" on you. Your phrasing was slanted- and, apparently, you didn't notice it. It was a loaded question, and I showed one equally loaded, just as unfair, and representing a different position. It isn't "negative if it disagrees with me and positive if it disagrees with someone else." I made a rather fundamental comment about the Greek and an obvious error in the same post. I don't think you INTENTIONALLY skipped over them, but you didn't address them, either. Considering the context- you sounding like something was obvious and unquestionable, yet missing something basic that was a basis for questioning it all by itself- I thought it was at least worth noting. One goal is "disagreeing without being disagreeable." If we got personal, I'm sure Raf and I could really insult and verbally abuse each other here-but we agree not to even if we agree on nothing else. There's ways to really disagree without making them personal. (Reminds me, Raf. I'll get back to Genesis 3 when the weather stays cool if I can manage enough time to sleep in between posts.) BTW, was Raf correct in his summary of your position?

IF you're correct about what he's saying, then my disagreements with him as to substance are COSMETIC, and my only disagreements with him would be about "style." But I'm not sure you're correct about what he's saying.

Actually, since you posted those verses in a SLANTED way, one could just as easily ask the EQUALLY LOADED question (it wasn't nice of you to ask the question the way you did) "Do you DELIBERATELY hide information that doesn't suit you?" All pfal grads SHOULD be able to remember something interesting about that verse. You didn't use the NASB. I just checked the Nestle-and the Greek agrees with it. The word "them" in the NIV is NOT IN THE GREEK-it was ADDED BY THE TRANSLATOR. It is VOID OF AUTHORITY. It is the translator's BEST GUESS as to what belonged in the sentence- and often we find the translator's skill WANTING. I Corinthians 14:2 NASB For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. The Greek seems consistent with a read that no "one who speaks in a tongue" UNDERSTANDS while he speaks mysteries. As for the more florid examples of English versions, well, they're nice, but all based on the opinion and not unquestionably a reflection of the Greek on which they were allegedly based. Personal attacks and appeals to OPINION are beneath the declared purposes of these threads.

" It was all designed so that if you accepted vic's definitions of the "gift ministries", you would "figure out" that vic made the definitions in a manner where all definitions pointed to vic as a current, biblically defined apostle, prophet and teacher. He never claimed to be an evangelist or pastor, but he sure made it appear as if he had the big three as listed in Corinthians. So if you accepted vic's definitions then you would reflexively accept that vic had at least the big three, and some thought all 5!" He may never have OFFICIALLY claimed to be an evangelist or pastor, but he sure HINTED about them shamelessly and, as you said, he redefined all 5 to make it sound like he fit ALL the definitions. Ever see a group say an Evangelist's primary function was NOT to "evangelize", but to GET OTHER PEOPLE TO EVANGELIZE? Only vpw was that shameless. He said that Evangelists had the duty to get others emotionally hot enough so that THEY evangelized. (Then the evangelist could stay at HQ and enjoy all the comforts.) My, how CONVENIENT. And how odd that the very word that defines the function supposedly doesn't apply at all to the function!

Are you saying that- ACCORDING TO STRONG'S- it might be equally accurate to render the same Greek expression either "forever and ever" OR "to the ages of the ages"? Last time I worked on it, I rendered it the latter, since it seems the most direct translation.

I know this comes as a shock to people at times, but this "phenomena" thing was an invention, probably of vpw's, and there is no BIBLICAL definition of it. Number of occurrences of the words phenomenon/phenomena in the KJV is ZERO, in the NIV is ZERO, in the RSV is ZERO. Since the words is NONEXISTENT in the Bible, it is not a word that has a BIBLICAL definition. What kind of definition can it have? It can be defined by its use. Back in 1989, when I was in a room with several people, someone claimed that phenomena were not guaranteed. I pointed out that WE LABEL something a phenomena when we are surprised by the results, that we did not consider this the expected result. I silenced the room for an instant, then someone IMMEDIATELY gave the knee-jerk reaction that we can't say that. Someone else quickly disagreed-but still didn't explain what it seemed the entire room was missing. It's perfectly acceptable to make up a word or a phrase to explain something new. We DO, however, need to be aware of what we do when we do it, and be aware that our IMPOSED labels are not CANON and are not AUTHORITATIVE. I bring all of that up now to bring up what may or may not be obvious- that calling something "phenomena", in and of itself, is a label, and a label without authority or a universal definition. "As we saw in Acts 2, sometimes people can understand what is being spoken in tongues, but this is rare and could be considered miraculous." That's 2 statements, neither supported by the verses themselves. If there's a rationale for either statement, it was not presented. "This is rare" "This could be considered miraculous". Mind you, all supernatural activity "could be considered miraculous." I believe what was MEANT here-correct me if it was NOT meant- was that "this could be considered unique." If the first occurrence of something is supposed to set the standard by which it is understood, then THE OPPOSITE is demonstrated. "Speaking in tongues is speaking to God a hidden or secret thing as inspired by the Holy Spirit." And yet, that's on the "God-end" of things, and the DEMONSTRATED end, certainly at Pentecost, was that the speakers spoke in languages they didn't understand but many observers did-and they explained the speech was of "the wonderful works of God." "The fact that these people of different nations heard the 12 apostles speak in their own native individual languages is phenomenon," I think we all agree that the people of the different nations heard the 12 apostles speak in their own native individual languages. The "it's a phenomenon" label, supposing it carries an actual meaning of "there's no guarantees of this", is a CLAIM and was not supported. "and a reverse effect of that which occurred at the Tower of Babel when God confounded the languages. See Genesis chapter 11, verses 1-9." It looks similar, but there are important differences. We can discuss them if you wish. "That everyone understood in their own different language in Acts chapter 2 does not normally happen, but apparently this phenomenon was a sign of the importance and significance of the receiving of the Holy Spirit as promised by God." Again, that it "does not normally happen" is a claim. "Apparently" means the claim is being explained when it wasn't ever SUPPORTED. I saw this when people explained the significance of the cross Jesus was crucified on as being the "lowercase t" shape. Nice explanation, not factual, and not supported. "If someone speaks in tongues or speaks in tongues with interpretation, it is possible for someone to know the language or tongue if it is a language of men that they know." I would agree. If the listener understood the language of either the "tongue" or the interpretation, they would be able to follow it. Mind you, I think this claim ruffles feathers. "However, the person speaking in tongues according to the scriptures will not know the language otherwise it wouldn’t be a tongue described as a mystery or divine secret to the speaker." I think that this is uncontested, and we all agree. Providing what is done is actual tongues (that's a "given" for that statement.) When vpw supposedly spoke Greek when told to "speak in tongues", he was intentionally faking it, so he knew what he was saying. (Presuming this was a true story he recounted.)

*lightbulb* We're talking Kim Jong Il, and something something "World Police." Looked like the South Park inventors did a marionette movie, or something.

We never found out if they spoke English in "What". "Pulp Fiction."

I'm getting that the most likely meaning is that Nathaniel concluded Jesus saw him by revelation one way or another, and responded with that in mind. I mean, just plain good eyesight is nice but not miraculous. Another thing I was thinking about was a possible paucity of signs. Under the Roman occupation, the remaining prophets and so on may have stayed alive by keeping a lower, less-controversial profile. The Romans didn't pry, so if they didn't draw attention to themselves, they could survive under Roman rule. (Then came John and Jesus and all that went out the window.)

A was definitely "Cash Cab" in either version (NYC, Chicago.) B was "Repo Games." If your car was up for repo, they would show up, grab the car, then tell you that you had the chance to play. They ask 5 questions. Answer 3 correctly out of 5 (or less than 5 if you answer well and get the first few right), and they put the car down, pay off the past-due, and pay off the entire remainder- you now own the car free and clear. If you miss 3, or refuse to play, they just drive off with the car. C was definitely "Let's Make a Deal" with any of the hosts. Your turn.

Actually, I remember how lcm's own biography showed how lcm went from college student directly to twi full-timer, with no pause for life outside either academia (where he was proud to be just a jock) or twi's grounds. He went from being IN the corps to RUNNING the corps in one step, with no practice or experience in between. As for Johnny R here, he went from being in the Corps directly to being put in charge of the wow program (before it was dismantled), then he was put directly into the cabinet. He was neither a "Limb" coordinator nor a "Region" coordinator, although he was a Branch coordinator during his interim Corps year. Just felt that needed to be added.

It's game show time. Identify any game show to take the round. A) Got in a taxi and suddenly became the contestant on a trivia quiz game-show? I know what show you're on..... B) Fell behind on your car payments, and you now have a chance to play for your car to be paid off rather than taken away? I know what show you're on... C) You're in a studio audience, wearing a gorilla costume. If you have a deck of cards, the host will suddenly pay you cash for it. There's only one show you could be on....

Wow. So, killing Saddam Hussein twice in "Hot Shots" and "Hot Shots Part Deux" didn't count as assassination attempts? They dropped a bomb in his lap, and a house on him.

Let's keep this thread as free of Doctrinal overlap as we can. We can easily say " A trained linguist could do this, using the principles of morphology and syntax, without any knowledge of the specific language. So, if a trained linguist is exposed to an actual language of any kind -verbal, vocal recordings of any actual language- they have the tools and training to diagram it." We can also say "A linguist would be able to construct a format (similar to diagramming sentences) for any language, whether or not he knew anything about it- if, indeed, it represented a viable language. An inability to do so (providing one didn't set him up to fail by giving him 2 seconds of a language, say) would indicate it lacked the structures that verbal, vocal languages possess by virtue of being verbal, vocal languages." (I am so specific because I'm aware that it's possible that less-honest posters could isolate a single sentence, then find something that it didn't apply to and was never suggested to, then claim the sentence was false rather than misapplied.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language "Human language has the properties of productivity, recursivity, and displacement, and relies entirely on social convention and learning. Its complex structure affords a much wider range of expressions than any known system of animal communication." All right, we were clear language wasn't as limited as animal communication. As for the rest, let's get some plain English for the laymen. "productivity" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_(linguistics) "In linguistics, productivity is the degree to which native speakers use a particular grammatical process, especially in word formation." "In standard English, the formation of preterite and past participle forms of verbs by means of ablaut (for example, sing–sang–sung) is no longer considered productive. Newly coined verbs in English overwhelmingly use the 'weak' (regular) ending -ed for the past tense and past participle (for example, spammed, e-mailed). Similarly, the only clearly productive plural ending is -(e)s; it is found on the vast majority of English count nouns and is used to form the plurals of neologisms, such as FAQs and Muggles. The ending -en, on the other hand, is no longer productive, being found only in oxen, children, and the now-rare brethren." ================================================= "recursivity"- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursivity (Discussed as "recursion") "Recursion is the process of repeating items in a self-similar way." " A sentence can have a structure in which what follows the verb is another sentence: Dorothy thinks witches are dangerous, in which the sentence witches are dangerous occurs in the larger one. So a sentence can be defined recursively (very roughly) as something with a structure that includes a noun phrase, a verb, and optionally another sentence. This is really just a special case of the mathematical definition of recursion. This provides a way of understanding the creativity of language—the unbounded number of grammatical sentences—because it immediately predicts that sentences can be of arbitrary length: Dorothy thinks that Toto suspects that Tin Man said that.... Of course, there are many structures apart from sentences that can be defined recursively, and therefore many ways in which a sentence can embed instances of one category inside another. Over the years, languages in general have proved amenable to this kind of analysis." "Recursion plays a crucial role not only in syntax, but also in natural language semantics. The word and, for example, can be construed as a function that can apply to sentence meanings to create new sentences, and likewise for noun phrase meanings, verb phrase meanings, and others. It can also apply to intransitive verbs, transitive verbs, or ditransitive verbs. In order to provide a single denotation for it that is suitably flexible, and is typically defined so that it can take any of these different types of meanings as arguments. This can be done by defining it for a simple case in which it combines sentences, and then defining the other cases recursively in terms of the simple one." ================================================ "displacement"- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_(linguistics) "In linguistics, displacement is the capability of language to communicate about things that are not immediately present (spatially or temporally); i.e., things that are either not here or are not here now. In 1960, Charles F. Hockett proposed displacement as one of 13 design features of language that distinguish human language from animal communication systems (ACSs): Man is apparently almost unique in being able to talk about things that are remote in space or time (or both) from where the talking goes on. This feature—"displacement"—seems to be definitely lacking in the vocal signaling of man's closest relatives, though it does occur in bee-dancing." "Honeybees use the waggle dance to communicate the location of a patch of flowers suitable for foraging. The degree of displacement in this example remains limited when compared to human language. A bee can only communicate the location of the most recent food source it has visited. It cannot communicate an idea about a food source at a specific point in the past, nor can it speculate about food sources in the future.[2] In addition, displacement in the waggle dance is restricted by the language's lack of creativity and productivity. The bees can express direction and distance, but it has been experimentally determined that they lack a sign for "above". It is also doubtful that bees can communicate about non-existent nectar for the purpose of deception.[3] Consequently, in honeybee communication, the potential for displacement is limited, but it is there insofar as they have the ability to communicate about something not currently present (i.e., something that is spatially removed)." ================================================== https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language "Human language is unique in comparison to other forms of communication, such as those used by non-human animals. Communication systems used by other animals such as bees or apes are closed systems that consist of a finite, usually very limited, number of possible ideas that can be expressed.[21] In contrast, human language is open-ended and productive, meaning that it allows humans to produce a vast range of utterances from a finite set of elements, and to create new words and sentences. This is possible because human language is based on a dual code, in which a finite number of elements which are meaningless in themselves (e.g. sounds, letters or gestures) can be combined to form an almost infinite number of larger units of meaning (words and sentences).[22] Furthermore, the symbols and grammatical rules of any particular language are largely arbitrary, so that the system can only be acquired through social interaction.[23] The known systems of communication used by animals, on the other hand, can only express a finite number of utterances that are mostly genetically determined.[24]" Human languages also differ from animal communication systems in that they employ grammatical and semantic categories, such as noun and verb, present and past, which may be used to express exceedingly complex meanings.[25] Human language is also unique in having the property of recursivity: for example, a noun phrase can contain another noun phrase (as in "[[the chimpanzee]'s lips]") or a clause can contain another clause (as in "]").[2] Human language is also the only known natural communication system whose adaptability may be referred to as modality independent. This means that it can be used not only for communication through one channel or medium, but through several. For example, spoken language uses the auditive modality, whereas sign languages and writing use the visual modality, and braille writing uses the tactile modality.[26] Human language is also unique in being able to refer to abstract concepts and to imagined or hypothetical events as well as events that took place in the past or may happen in the future. This ability to refer to events that are not at the same time or place as the speech event is called displacement, and while some animal communication systems can use displacement (such as the communication of bees that can communicate the location of sources of nectar that are out of sight), the degree to which it is used in human language is also considered unique.[22]" "

I looked over all the usages of that Hebrew word. It's consistent with the usage of "glossa" in Greek, "lengua" in Spanish and "tongue" in English. (I'll waste the time going over the usages later in an appropriate format.) It's easier to follow in a more modern version like the NASB than the KJV. I expect the KJV's usage of words with usages less common since 1611 can lead (accidentally or not) to false conclusions from meaning changes. (The opposite of "incline" was "decline", so when told not to "decline" to the behavior of a sinner, it meant "don't lower yourself to their level," not "if you are offered the chance to sin, don't refuse.")

This is obviously "Patch Adams." Just kidding, I have no freaking idea.

"What"?"

Your link redirected. If you'd put the band name, I could have found it faster among various "You Can't Sit Down"s. I did a search with the lyrics and got The Dovells. (Who? Who? Who? Quiet down, owls!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB1XqnyI65o

Here's the adult version of "Yo mama!" Again. Skipped all the content, labeled what I said as not just "Wierwillian word-games" in the vain hope it will produce a KNEE-JERK reaction and not a logical response? Hey, guys! This is SUPPOSED to be a DOCTRINAL thread, about what the Bible actually says and what we should take from that if we believe it. It's not supposed to be about making a doctrine of your experiences, nor a referendum on how disbelieving what wierwille taught equals disbelieving the Bible as a whole (which it does not, for most Christians with faith.) How about we try to return to discussing the Bible, its content, and its meaning here, and skip all the personal experiences, insults, insinuations and personal attacks? Granted, it would slow the posting on this thread to a crawl, but it would be a crawl of content actually worth reading. There are other threads to discuss all the separate issues- like personal experience (2 active threads) and what language means outside of the Bible (1 active thread.) If you really think those are important issues, why are you skipping the threads like they've got the zika virus?

If I were "heated up", it might be about the sad attempt to dismiss what I say by skipping the content, and slapping a dishonest label on it, like that it's the result of being "heated up." (BTW, still not "heated up.") http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics "1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that “dream stealers” will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with calling your opponent a name that is relevant and objectively defined. The most common example of name calling against me is “negative;” in coaching, the critics of coaches are often “college professors” and the word “professor” is used as a name-calling tactic by the coaches who are the targets of the criticism in question; as a coach, I have been criticized as being “too intense,” a common but undefined put-down of successful youth and high school coaches. People who criticize their former employer are dishonestly dismissed as “disgruntled” or “bitter.” These are all efforts to distract the audience by changing the subject because the speaker cannot refute the facts or logic of the opponent. “Womanizer” and “price gouger” and “exploiter” are other name-calling names that cannot be objectively defined." ======================================= Or, in this case, the debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by saying it's the result of being "heated" and not actually demonstrating the logic it demonstrates. [i'll address plenty of other things later. Life's banging on the door.]