WordWolf

Supposing any of them is correct. I don't mind having a "working definition"- something kept as a rule of thumb. All these definitions were treated as AUTHORITATIVE and DEFINITIVE when they were no such thing. They all had problems in SOMEONE'S opinion. They can't all be right-but someone thinks each is somewhere, and they're considering that DOCTRINE and basing life decisions on it. That was true of the Keys to Walking By the Spirit, too, and everything else. We're still seeing people quote vpw on things he didn't understand- and acting as if it's mistrusting God to check if it was correct.

"Not everyone believes what you believe." "My beliefs do not require them to." "I remember that for 100 years they have sent their armies to destroy us, and after a century of war I remember that which matters most... We are still here!" "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept."

"This evening has been (Been hoping that you'd drop in) So very nice (I'll hold your hands, they're just like ice) My mother will start to worry (Beautiful what's your hurry?) My father will be pacing the floor (Listen to the fireplace roar) So really I'd better scurry (Beautiful please don't hurry) But maybe just a half a drink more (Put some records on while I pour)" "You've really been grand (I thrill when you touch my hand) But don't you see (How can you do this thing to me?) There's bound to be talk tomorrow (Think of my life long sorrow) At least there will be plenty implied (If you caught pneumonia and died)"

Andy Serkis Lord of the Rings:Return of the King Christopher Lee

This is where the discussion of the last 2 pages was, minus your detours into accusations, ad hominem attacks, and strawmen. Not letting you off the hook here and pretending you're not doing it again. We left off with you making some avoidable errors and refusing to discuss them, adding the insults, etc to distract from the fact you were caught twice. I've reposted them here. You can address them or everyone can see, very easily, that you're ducking them. You're free to duck them, of course, but all your supposed superior understanding of Scripture looks like a big bluff when you're avoiding direct discussion of subjects. Last I counted, that was at least 2 on this thread and one on the other you're refusing to discuss while claiming everyone else's understanding is flawed.

Mostly from watching people do it rather than discuss like adults, sure, I suppose I do. They also decided they were right from the beginning, and wouldn't even CONSIDER they might be wrong. They called Jesus all kinds of names and spent a lot of time AROUND issues rather than dealing with them. They were soooo sure and refused to look at the evidence.

No, that's when you change the subject by announcing that everyone who's making sense is exhibiting worldly wisdom. I wouldn't mind John disagreeing if he did it more honestly and didn't flee and spew insults and subject changes every time he was caught being wrong- or even suspected he'd be caught being wrong. Hey-it's possible that he could present his case for something, and I could present mine, and he'd prove me wrong. But we'll never know for sure with him running and hiding.

I have to explain why that's so freaking funny. There's this group of entertainers called "Les Luthiers." (You can read up about them on Wikipedia or on their TVTropes page.) They have been likened to Monty Python's Flying Circus. They are musicians and comedians. The name "les luthiers" means people who make music instruments, Which they do- out of things that obviously aren't instruments. You can clearly recognize a canned ham, a rain barrel, a water-heater, etc- which they then proceed to play and play WELL. Often the music follows a comedy routine or is a part of one. They dress all in tuxedos, and use relatively few props, relying on voice, posture and other acting tools to convey the characters they play. They are hysterically funny, and multilingual. They are Argentinian and do their jokes primarily in Spanish- but occasionally dip into English or French to make a specific joke. Because they are multilingual, they do all their own subtitles. They do stage shows every few years across Argentina (and, I expect, much of South America), and DVDs are made of the live shows. That's where the subtitles come in. So, on YouTube you can find some of their stuff, and some of that has English subtitles included. I'm linking to one of those. From back in the 1980s, when they all had hair. This part of the show had been a spoof of those "experts" on children who obviously had no idea what they were talking about because they never RAISED any children. So, the guy is talking in a very unctuous manner to the parents. There's hysterical visuals because he tries to demonstrate how to explain things to children- and picks one of his assistants at random to play the child in each example. The guy looks very put-upon, and the other guys very obvious make fun of him every time it happens. But the part that's truly memorable follows thereafter. The speaker announces the group will play a children's song- which they do. The problem is, there's a kid present who keeps asking questions about the subject of the song and what is being sung. And the singer tries to answer the kid. (Both played by adult men in tuxedo, obviously, but follow the voices.) The song is called "The Hen Said Eureka." Since this upload has subtitles, you can follow it completely in English.

*falls over laughing* This has to be "Eureka." I was thinking of "Give me a lever and one firm place to stand, and I will move the world."

Cute. Got caught making mistakes on the Bible by believing pfal had it all correct, was told he was wrong and it will be laid out in specifics once he stops being vague on a matter and it can be compared to Scripture... and he attempts to equate the thinkers who like truth to Pharisees who like politics, and himself to Jesus Christ, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Like I said, cute.

And not FROM Scripture. Glad you could acknowledge your source correctly. Incorrect-if Scripture is the standard. If pfal is the standard, then you reflected what it said. That explanation ALSO does not correspond to Scripture. Those of us who don't subscribe to "vpw/pfal said it, I believe it" anymore would need, at the very least, a Scriptural basis for it, or even a logical basis for it. A solely textual basis from pfal doesn't cut it- "vpw said it, that settles it, I believe it" is not enough for ALMOST everyone. That IS all out of pfal. However, it is also wrong. For startets, it's been over A DECADE since we first discussed that vpw's explanation of the phrase "private interpretation" in the King James Version was incorrect and failed to address what the verse was actually saying. He invented a different, cool meaning he could use because it reflected what he wanted to teach. The verse was saying something simpler. However, vpw used what he referred to as "private interpretation" to come up with his definition of "private interpretation." A decade later (probably a lot more), you still don't have this down. That matter little with how badly you misunderstand that verse. Fixing the understanding of one word won't correct the bigger problems. If we make it clear when we're giving our opinion or best understanding on something, there's nothing wrong with that. I've given 2 explanations to the same verse together, with their rationales, and said the listeners could pick their favorite. In neither case did the overall meaning change, they both were going in the same direction and disagreed on a tiny point. Except you're "privately interpreting" what privately interpreting MEANS. That may or may not be evil, depending on the specifics, but it certainly is neither God's will nor "best."

Then this show would probably be "Leverage." (Since I can't find any references to a show named "lever" but I remember something called "leverage."

We either need another clue or another show.

I agree about Hackman, but I'm thinking it's Superman 3, not Superman 2. I've seen Superman 2 a lot and I think I'd recognize much of the script. Naturally, if I'm wrong, I will be chagrined.

I was thinking about how "Recognized Corps" was something handy if you wanted to "date up" into the corps, and it worked for John T and others into getting them recognition. However, the phrase I probably should have been thinking of was "Spouse Corps."

John, what's your definition of "foretold?" I ask because Abraham DID foretell at least 1 thing, no matter what we were taught. So, before I point that out, I want your definition of what foretelling is so you don't change your definition as soon as I do to suddenly exclude it.

I forget when I last saw this one, but it was long ago enough I forgot.

"You've really been grand (I thrill when you touch my hand) But don't you see (How can you do this thing to me?) There's bound to be talk tomorrow (Think of my life long sorrow) At least there will be plenty implied (If you caught pneumonia and died)"

Too bad-I actually linked through the 4th most recognizable person on the cast. Jennifer, Mark and Andy are all known for other movies.

Too many MADE-UP definitions, made up by people who didn't understand the English language that well. (This practice is still defended by other people who don't understand the English language that well.) There is no word "retemory" in the English language. It is only used in twi and ex-twi circles. It is a portmanteau of the words "memory" and "retain". That, BTW, was written out in the syllabus of a class- Renewed Mind or DwtA, I forget which.

Cursed Judy Greer 13 Going on 30

"Every time that I look in the mirror, All these lines on my face getting clearer."

Yes and yes, but he doesn't have the biggest lips- gotta give that to Mick Jagger.