WordWolf

Hello, Aball. Enjoy your stay. Different versions work for different people, for different reasons.You probably know this, but there's three rough categories of versions: 1) Paraphrases (that give the basic meaning, like The Message, The Living Bible, and so on) 2) Concept for concept (that attempt to translate each concept, like the NIV, and so on) 3) Word for word (that attempt to translate each word, like the KJV, the RSV, and so on) If you're looking for a direct, word for word, but NOT the KJV, I'll recommend the NASB, the New American Standard Bible. It's got the italics, but it uses more documentation (discovered in the past decades and centuries), uses plain English, and attempts to use words consistently- meaning a word translates into ONE English word EACH time it's used-at least, that's the goal.) If you don't like it, then, fine, use what works for you. We've discussed the HECK out of this one. In the "About The Way" forum and the Doctrinal forum, plus the Archives, there's a LOT of discussion on it, from all sorts of discussions. Generally speaking, the positions tend to polarize between 3 of them: 1) vpw was a great man who understood deep principles, and the "Law" of Believing is indeed a "Law" 2) vpw was a great man who was misunderstood and didn't mean it was a "Law" when he called it that 3) the "Law" of Believing is no "Law" and works nothing like vpw said it did Most posters tend to fall into the third category.

"How can you call him handsome, with those bugged out eyes and hairy legs?" ""You've got a fly on the lens." "Did you get any of 'em?" "Two- a flatfoot and a private eye. I got the eye in the foot and the foot in the eye." "Why did the French send Marie Antoinette to sharp blade of the guillotine?" ""To scrape the barnacles off her hull!" "I want the names to be unique and euphonious. "Okay. Unique if it's a boy, and Euphonious if it's a girl." "How about 'Phillip' if it's a boy..." "..and 'Morris' if it's a girl?" "Oh, you study numerology?" "Of course." "I'm a 1." "I'm a 3." "Ah, I'm a 5." "We're all odd, aren't we?" "What's your baby's name?" "Cheddar...ah, Chester!"

"How can you call him handsome, with those bugged out eyes and hairy legs?" ""You've got a fly on the lens." "Did you get any of 'em?" "Two- a flatfoot and a private eye. I got the eye in the foot and the foot in the eye." "Why did the French send Marie Antoinette to sharp blade of the guillotine?" ""To scrape the barnacles off her hull!"

Here's how the quotes went... "You will unite or you will fall." Elrond to the Council at Rivendell. "All shall love me and despair!" Galadriel, tested by Frodo's offer of The Ring. "I suppose you think that was terribly clever." Gandalf, to Bilbo after he left his birthday party. "Fly, you fools." Gandalf to the Fellowship, just before they left Moria, his last line in Moria. "If anyone was to ask for my opinion, which I note they're not, I'd say we were taking the long way around." Gimli to the Fellowship, as they try to scale Caradhras instead of entering Moria. " Throw yourself in next time, and rid us of your stupidity." Gandalf to Pippin in Moria. "Fool of a Took!" "Are you frightened?" "Yes." "Not nearly frightened enough." Strider and Frodo upon meeting, at the Prancing Pony. "That wound will never fully heal. He will carry it the rest of his life." Gandalf, discussing Frodo's injury from a Nazgul once Elrond healed him. "I feel... thin. Sort of stretched, like... butter scraped over too much bread." Bilbo's most evocative line when leaving, having turned 111 (old for a hobbit) but seeming UNCHANGED for the last few decades. He didn't FEEL like he looked...The Ring was changing him slowly. (If they'd left it out of the movie, I would have been disappointed.)

CORRECT!

The "Batman" television show, the Adam West/Burt Ward one.

"You will unite or you will fall." "All shall love me and despair!" "I suppose you think that was terribly clever." "Fly, you fools." "If anyone was to ask for my opinion, which I note they're not, I'd say we were taking the long way around." " Throw yourself in next time, and rid us of your stupidity." "Are you frightened?" "Yes." "Not nearly frightened enough." "That wound will never fully heal. He will carry it the rest of his life." "I feel... thin. Sort of stretched, like... butter scraped over too much bread."

"SCARFACE"?

NIS, unless you looked it up to get the answer, go ahead and answer it! G St G and I are hesitating to rush to answer each other, because it's more fun to let other people come play, also! We don't WANT 2-person threads, we want a dozen or more! Please answer it unless you looked it up.

Congratulations. Why, then, participate in a discussion about THE BIBLE, whose purpose was to ask "WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ON THIS?" I mean, how many posts does it take to say "I'm posting on this thread to say I don't care about its subject". (That's effectively what you said. Lindy asked "what does it say" and you posted "I don't care.") If it was a discussion, say, of Starhawk's books and I had no interest in it, it would be unlikely I'd even spend ONE post saying "I'm disinterested in this subject"-I'd let those who wanted to discuss her Doctrine continue to do so without distraction. So, "holding the word(s) of God in high esteem" is compatible with considering the Bible a "history" written by the winners, a "flawed" document "flawed by many hands." Without more information, I don't see how those statements harmonize. It also looks like you're saying you don't think much of the Bible, but have no problem declaring you understand it on subjects well enough to write a book on it and recommend it to Christians. ====== Frankly, other than rhetoric and "the Bible is wrong", I haven't seen anyone put forth any case for saying "the Bible says homosexuality is perfectly all right, not error, not a problem, totally copacetic" with any rationale deeper than "because I say so" on this thread. I don't know if Lindy got what he was looking for, but I also haven't been greatly surprised as to thread content, either. (I am, however, surprised that nobody's accused me of being a closeminded, reactionary knuckle-dragger, which is a pleasant surprise. The dialogue hasn't descended into the Soap Opera forum-yet.) I think I'm done on this thread. I don't see much I can add, and I don't see that anyone wants what little I CAN add, and I don't see much to warrant me following along any further. So I'll probably step out of it before I break something. Carry on, ladies and gentlemen.

It's not like vpw himself didn't prove he was fine with the concept. After all, in "the way:living in love", vpw admitted to doing it. When some Christians were honestly trying to help him speak in tongues, and they told him to speak in another language, he intentionally spoke in a language he knew, since that-technically- matched the letter of what they asked, even though it mutilated the intent of what they obviously meant. vpw faked speaking in tongues, and was SMUG about having deceived the other Christians.

I don't remember if breaking the sabbath had the same penalty, but if you do, I'll take your word for it at the moment. After all, it's not like that's where the discussion is going... The poor practices of top twi leadership-as reflected in their poor "private" doctrines- were the cause of much hurt and harm to people. They were also quite hypocritical- lcm was a poor Christian when in charge of twi, and a chronic sinner, but he railed at length against SOME sins and considered OTHER sins to be perfectly fine. (And that's only one example from twi.) As a Christian, there's a lot to be said for patience, kindness, prayer, and the like when dealing withall acquaintances, for all sin... Unless you're thinking of an entirely different quote, the one you were thinking of was "I will have mercy and not SACRIFICE", and was meant to indicate that mercy, kindness, and so on were far MORE important than all the rituals to be followed-especially if they were followed without mercy and kindness.

No.

No.

(double post) .

I've read different sources on this one, down the years, and most of them were convinced that the opposing point of view (and they disagreed completely) was held by fools who didn't know how to read, and that the verses totally supported their point of view. So far, I haven't seen anything new yet except different people holding them forth. However, if something new comes up, I reserve the right to be surprised. Ok, I was ASKED. Normally, I keep my verses-and opinions-out of other peoples' lives and discussions,but I was ASKED. [sarcasm] Glad to see none of us have already made up our minds before we fully explore this subject.... [/sarcasm] [milder sarcasm] Obviously, some of us consider discussing "abominations" or discussing Romans 1 to be either off-topic, or perhaps behind-the-times, a fossil of doctrine about local beliefs thousands of years ago, or otherwise inappropriate, or something else along those lines. [/milder sarcasm] No matter what perspective that reflected, it's one where it doesn't look like the verses are particularly WELCOME, especially if they're NOT used to draw the same conclusion- "biblically speaking". However, I was ASKED. =============== Since the verses that actually directly address the discussion seem to be viewed with some sort of negative, tired and trite light, I'll bring in something I noticed on my own time that will NOT be part of the cliche festival that some might be expecting.... (I felt the need to address all that. Now, some "steak" to match all the "sizzle"...) There's several words translated "wicked" in the KJV. Each seems to relate to a different concept, all translated "wicked." Concerning the Greek... "Poneros" seems to come closest to what most of us would think of as "Evil" with the capital "E." It's malignance, malevolence, the intent and action to cause harm to others. "Athesmos" seems to refer to the violation of the established rules and ordinances, hearing "thou shalt not" and going to do it anyway. "Kakos" seems to refer to "bad" in the sense of "worthless", something that adds nothing. The word I, personally, find interesting is "anomos". Bullinger renders it as "without law, not subject to law, lawless; then a violator of natural law." The roots of the word are "a-" meaning "no" or "not", and "nom" or "name". Those of you who've studied Sociology will be familiar with the term "anomie". Emile Durkheim was quite concerned with the concept, and coined the term for the concept from this Greek. In Sociology, it means "NORMLESSNESS", a state where there is no way to determine what is "right", what is "wrong". Durkheim coined the term when he discovered SUICIDE RATES went up during periods of anomie, when there was no standard, no rule, for determining what is "right" or what is "wrong." He was concerned with events contemporary to him, but they were hardly unique. Throughout history, different people in different places and times have faced societies when there were no rules common, where everyone did what was right in his OWN eyes, which, of course, may be completely WRONG, or outright INSANE. However, when a culture is in a state of "anomie", the only thing that is "wrong" is to actually say something is "wrong." I see the concept as being nearly identical to the word "anomos" in the New Testament Greek, where there is NO law, NO rule where one can say "THIS is all right, but THAT should not be done." Personally, I was more concerned with this concept as it related to II Thessalonians 2:8, since few verses give a lot of information. However, once the subject is understood, it can be seen in use in different places in Scripture-some where the word "anomos" is used, some where it is NOT. As I see it, this "discussion" was already determined before it BEGAN. It was framed as a matter of "well, saying Scripture calls Subject A 'wrong' is 'wrong', but let's discuss it." Perhaps I'm not seeing what others mean to say. Perhaps I misunderstand them. However, I HAVE waited and given the discussion a few days and waited, to see if my opinion of what's been said changed. No, I believe this IS what was meant. If someone wishes to say "I do not believe the Bible" or "I disagree with the Bible", I say they have the freedom to determine their own opinions and convictions. I see no reason to intrude where someone does not WISH me to intrude. All of you are adults. If you WANT me to help you change your opinion, you know how to ask. I disagree whenever anyone is prepared to determine what the Bible says, and then does whatever is necessary to change the meaning of verses and chapters, in order to make it appear to say what they WANT it to say. I disagree with that on moral grounds, no matter WHAT doctrine is being squeezed out of it- which means I will object when someone AGREES with me and tortures a verse to "support" it. (We've seen vpw do this, we've seen lcm do this, we've seen people outside of twi and in twi does this. I don't like ANY of it. I find it intellectually dishonest.) ======== So, others have had their say, in part. I've had my say, in part. I even skipped the verses someone didn't want addressed. Each poster, each reader, has the choice of blowing us both off, or of vilifying one or dismissing one. Or, preferably, disagree respectfully with at least one.

When addressing the good that some people do, I like to bring up one "upstanding citizen"- who was a member of the Jaycees, a local pillar of his community, got a high-level security clearance from the Secret Service, and was known locally for throwing block parties where he entertained local children as a clown. Sounds like a nice guy, right? "To everyone who met him, John Wayne Gacy seemed a likable and affable man. He was widely respected in the community, charming and easy to get along with. He was a good Catholic and sharp businessman who, when not running his construction company was active in the Jaycees and was also a Democratic Party precinct captain, when he had his photo taken with then First Lady, Rosalynn Carter. He also spent much of his free time hosting elaborate street parties for his friends and neighbors, serving in community groups and entertaining children as "Pogo the Clown". He was a generous, hard working, friendly, devoted family man, everyone knew that -- but that was the side of John Wayne Gacy that he allowed people to see. Underneath the smiling mask of the clown was the face of depraved fiend." http://www.prairieghosts.com/gacy.html For those who don't know the kind of monster Gacy was... "John Wayne Gacy (March 17, 1942 – May 10, 1994) also known as The Killer Clown, was an American serial killer. He was convicted and later executed for the rape and murder of 33 boys and young men between 1972 and his arrest in 1978, 27 of whom he buried in a crawl space under the floor of his house, while others were found in nearby rivers. He became notorious as the "Killer Clown" because of the many block parties he threw for his friends and neighbors, entertaining children in a clown suit and makeup, under the name of "Pogo the Clown." He was also in the Guinness Book of World Records for the longest sentence imposed on a mass murderer; he was given 21 consecutive life sentences and 12 death sentences." So, it would not surprise me that vpw could seem like a nice guy, a generous guy, friendly, even a pillar of the community. He would hardly be alone in this....

"You will unite or you will fall." "All shall love me and despair!" "I suppose you think that was terribly clever." "Fly, you fools." "If anyone was to ask for my opinion, which I note they're not, I'd say we were taking the long way around." " Throw yourself in next time, and rid us of your stupidity."

I'll answer this right after I get tired molesting this atomic pile over here.....

As to the original question asked here, I must say "No." I did once speak in tongues for a fellow who was Jewish. He found the particular cadences of the tongue I spoke in (which, like everything else about me, was unique and idiosyncratic) to remind him of certain worship that they did, basically chanting verses from the Torah. He demonstrated, and yes, they sounded like the same cadences (pacing, spaces, stressed syllables) but with completely different words, perhaps like comparing one Romance language with another. The things that convinced me more were instances involving "prophecy" or "interpretation." I'll say that much, but I've said before I'm not posting the specifics in cyberspace on them. They were more convincing FOR ME.

"You will unite or you will fall." "All shall love me and despair!"

If you mean "am I naive to just accept everything twi said about the Bible?" If that's what you mean, then, yes, you ARE naive. If you mean "Am I naive because I believe the Bible is God's Word?" That's a cornerstone (depending on how it's meant) of Christianity. Many survivors of twi read the Bible, think for themselves, and trust God. Sometimes they agree with something vpw said, ("Mary is the mother of Jesus"), and sometimes they don't ("what you believe, you receive.") Generally, you can find a Christian of nearly every opinion SOMEWHERE on this site. (Including the ones who think vpw was a nice guy.) If you believe the Bible, do like the Bereans. When they were taught, they searched the Scriptures daily, to see if what they were taught lined up with the Bible. Oh, and sometimes we can disagree but still respect each other, and sometimes we can overlook minor doctrinal differences in favor of the big picture. (Don't pretend they don't exist-just don't fixate on them, is all.)

Ok, time to move this along. This is "Iron Man", which is STILL in theaters in the US. I was referring to their song "I Am Iron Man".... If you saw the movie, this would probably have been a giveaway... This line appeared in most of the commercials.

I wanted this one for the other thread, but I couldn't find enough quotes.

That's it. "Paradise Lost." Some of the writers were disappointed the episode budget was too small-it meant they didn't have enough extras to get across the impression there were Starfleet all OVER the place. The preceeding episode was Grandpa Joe refusing blood-screenings, and nobody taking the threat seriously. Then there's a blackout, and Starfleet drops Security officers everywhere, and everyone's cooperating. That's where this episode begins. However, the blackout was engineered by Admiral Leyton, who did it to get people to agree with him. He had Red Squad do the blackout-which is why they weren't scared of what it meant. Also, the previous episode showed the Wormhole opening and closing, as if cloaked ships were passing through it. But that was design as well-and the Defiant was bringing the saboteur-who confessed-to Earth. Layton was willing to have the Lakota destroy the Defiant (if it could) to stop that. THIS script on that idea made sense, IMHO. There was at least one other where it didn't...