WordWolf

No problem! My usual rule is that-no matter the program-there's a free version that works at least as good (if not better) for my purposes, probably several. (And if this one isn't it, at least I didn't lose money on it.) The only trick is finding it. (Actually, there's several PDF programs, but I had that one loaded.)

'LG': "He got it from Bullinger, but he mixed up Bullinger's distinctions. He agreed with Bullinger regarding number, but not kind. Wierwille said that heteros indicated two of the same kind, whereas allos indicated different kinds." ===================== IIRC, in one place, vpw made that mistake (heteros of the same kind, allos of a different kind) and in another place, did NOT make that mistake (allos of the same kind, heteros of a different kind) In the same place he made that mistake, he used Bullinger's (incorrect) distinction of number. ===== Me, I always remembered them correctly referencing kind, and ignored his numerical explanation which seemed anomalous. The distinction was clear WITHOUT that, and adding numerical meaning fogged it needlessly. (Later study showed Bullinger just made it up OR SOMETHING.) I found the easiest way to keep them clear was in Galatians 1, where Paul chides them for turning to "another" (heteros) gospel which was not "another" (allo). In other words, they turned to a different gospel that was not of the same type. (Which is redundantly redundant, but that's fine in language, especially non-contemporary language.) ======= Oh, and that book would have been "How to Enjoy 'How to Enjoy the Bible' " with the additional markers to note we meant the other book. ==== I checked: part of the problem with HtEtB is the tiny print. I've read chapters online-after enlarging the text-and they're not as taxing to read like that. Then again, I still recommend a chapter at a time. ===== BTW, Bullinger's notes included a comment that he thought that some churches were built with a cross in each of the 4 corners, and that this was supposed to symbolize the 4 crucified. Supposing they WERE built that way, it might have simply been they were going to have 4 corners, then added a cross to each, period. There need not be any more detailed reason than that. Mind you, I'm just saying the 4 crosses in the architecture are proof of nothing. I'm not convinced one way or the other of one side's correctness, but I'm paying attention. (Mark, feel free to make your case, but please address the objections more specifically. You summarized things to briefly, which looks like you glossed over the objections. If you have a stronger case, it's better served with more detail-please elaborate when you have time.)

Nuts. I'm pretty sure I've heard this before.... ...and it's not "Heart of the Matter" and it's not "Misunderstood". Still trying to figure this out...

Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator are the basis for all other web browsers. All browsers, AFAIK, are variations of one or the other. IE2, now known as Maxthon, is a recommended IE ripoff. Mozilla is what the Netscape Navigator was based on. So, you have Netscape, and the current builds of Mozilla, and variations: Opera is a complicated Mozilla build. Mozilla minus the Opera frills was Phoenix, which became Firebird, which became Firefox. That's what I know offhand.

Well, my answer is a little longer than last time. I still have a strong internal identification with wolves. They protect their families, and don't plot amongst themselves, and their social structures are closer to humans than other animals are. In short, I wish more people I knew were more like them. (Except for the "killing to get dinner" part, of course- but it's effectively what we do anyway.) The "Word" part, I trust, needs no explanation. So, what's important to know about me? If you understand the screen-name, then you've got the basics. ========= As for the icon, it was made specifically FOR me by an artist. A wolf with The Word. It's actually part of a larger picture, but this is the part that can fit on an icon. Due to the size-limitation of the icons, I boosted the contrasts of the image to make it clearer. So it's sharper and harsher than the original.

One is CutePDF. http://www.cutepdf.com/

[WordWolf in boldface & brackets.]

The official references to her promotion called it "a battlefield promotion". It sounded very matter-of-fact, and, honestly, it sounded pre-fab and temporary compared to vpw and lcm and the ritual installation.

I like this one so much I'm going to fix the spellings... Plus, it bears repeating. 'themex': "A lot of people think that VPW was The Teacher of The Teachers, and Father in The Word- "The Man of God of Our Day and Time". But, he was not. He did good things and bad things. He is dead. Some of the splinters are making a cult around VPW and that is against the Word." By the way, themex, we formed the acronym "MOGFOT" and the acronym "MOGFODAT" on the phrases "Man of God For Our Time" and "Man of God For Our Day And Time" based on that error. Just thought you'd like to know.

Cocoon Don Ameche Coming to America

Now we're up to some easier-to-remember, and more recent times. vpw has died, PoP has been read, and there's the first sizeable migrations from twi. lcm wanders in a fog. twi loses and regains its tax-exempt status. (The NEXT thread will address his loy-alty letter and timeframe.) What did you see and hear in that timeframe? Oh, and since Schoenheit's paper condemning Adultery was 1986, this would be a relevant topic...

[WordWolf in bold & brackets again...] I did nothing of the kind, but that never stops you from dragging in non-sequiturs and commercials anyway... Without any documentation, and ONLY repetition, all that's accomplished is a sideshow act. You're peddling snake-oil, and we're not buying. For most, the advertisements are seen as exactly that. And I won't belabour the last comment again at the moment.

Oh, and, different people have different opinions, based of course on their own sources. One person's opinion, I thought, was worth quoting on this "tattered remnants" thing. ====== "To get the Word of God our of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another word and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all the verses. If it is the Word of God, then it cannot have a contradiction for God cannot contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding. When we get back to that original, God-breathed Word- which I am confident we can- then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the prophets of old, 'Thus saith the Lord.'" That's vpw himself, pg-128 of the Orange Book. He, for one, thinks that this is an attainable goal. Plus, this was in the Orange Book, which a few people credit with Divine Inspiration. So, I'm unsure whether Mike is more fond of his "tattered remnants" doctrine, or his "pfal is inerrant and from God" doctrine, but in this instance right here, they're mutually-exclusive.

Mike, if you're going to discuss text, that's a good thing. I recommend you go away, check your sources, THEN post. Otherwise, the posts will waste everyone's time and you look like shooting from the hip is ALL you can offer. I'd like your position represented honestly. ======= Oh, and Dan? (Sorry to keep bugging you.) Sorry about this interruption to your thread. I hope you're at least getting entertainment value while this plays out... Thank you for your tolerance.

[WordWolf in boldface again.] 'Mike': WW, You wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago." I've heard your BS before about some "wonderful" discoveries regarding ancient texts and now you come out with it again. [i've never MENTIONED it before. So I'm curious what voices you've heard that have mentioned it...] I decline your offer for a trade and I repeat my BS call on your assertion that there have been "major" breakthroughs in textual studies. Your offer is more a dare and I see no payoff for me to put my time into it. I don't need your deal to say "BS!" [Anybody ELSE would. See, the whole "tattered remnants" thing was an UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION. That means that-until you support it- there's no contextual difference between it and "unicorns carried off copies of the text!" We only have your say-so. Since we've known this was all just a smokescreen to claim another Bible was NEEDED, we knew your claim was made in the ABSENCE of any supporting documentation. So, I offered you a chance to surprise us-show us you have more to offer than just pulling something out of your...hat. In exchange, I'll answer your own claim I don't have an answer- which in ITSELF was a dare- and I'll offer TRIPLE the documentation YOU will. In short, I offered you the chance to show you had something to offer, and could at least equal 1/3 of my own "offer". Oddly, the fact that YOU started with a dare has escaped you. If you actually HAD some documentation, and I really WAS making this up-which you claim are BOTH true- then it would take you little effort to show me up- demonstrate to neutral observers that you actually HAD something to offer, while one of your detractors DIDN'T. Since you've miserably failed at those efforts so far, a gift-wrapped opportunity like this one would have proved useful-if you weren't all bluff. I offered a challenge, laid the odds on the weaker side, and STILL you won't meet it. I think most people can see which way the wind blows there...] Thread topic: the bottom line remains that we don't have the originals [Technically correct and universally agreed-upon.] and there are such a huge number of discrepancies [unsupported assertion. Wild claim.] from the sloppy copying of the originals [ANOTHER unsupported assertion. ANOTHER wild claim.] that the critical texts were a necessity to wade through all the TATTERED REMNANTS. [ANOTHER unsupported assertion. In stereo. Doesn't even sound like you know what a "critical text" IS.] And then, even after a dozen critical texts are produced [You know of a dozen? You're familiar with ANY?] EVEN THEY have inconsistencies as anyone with an interlinear can see by looking at all the footnotes. ["He said" for "Jesus said", and alternate spellings count as "inconsistencies"? I guess if you're desperate to find ANYTHING to call one, they count.] There's even no proof that ANY ONE of the critical texts have it right for any one passage. [unsupported assertion. As I said before, my CURRENT reading's sufficient to address it...presuming you want to go beyond bald statements made by fiat.] I don't need your deals to call your bluff. You offered to ALL the readers here a bluff and I called you on it. [YOU started by claiming "TATTERED REMNANTS." THAT'S a bluff, and your entire claim of this is a smokescreen to hide that, and switch the subject. Sorry, I was paying attention. YOU support your assertion ONE time, I'll support mine in TRIPLICATE. I'm confident in this because: A) You lack support for one time B) I have sufficient support for three.] NO DEAL. [Leaving, of course, no support for your doctrine of "tattered remnants", which was the original point you're hiding] Even if the originals were discovered in a cave tomorrow what proof could there be that they were said originals? How would anyone even get a strong hunch that they were the originals? [Well, if one has already concluded-as you have-that it is impossible, such a text would be mislabelled anyway, so that's a moot point. It's also a smokescreen for your unsupported opening assertion about "tattered remnants", which you've engaged in this new song-and-dance about my comment to conceal.] I say BS because you have no wonderful discoveries to report. [Which, of course, means that your doctrine declares discoveries are impossible, so you don't believe in them, even when dealing with one face-to-face. I presume you're also woefully under-researched on the subject, since you find the concept of seeing you're wrong so utterly repugnant that you do everything you can to avoid facing it. I'm doubtful you know as much on the subject as vpw did as of pfal, and HE was under-researched for his time-frame.] Biblical text research is a huge pile of opinions, guesses, theories, sense knowledge workings, and devilish interferences, just like it was 50 years ago and 100 years ago. [it's SO much easier to dismiss entire fields of study than to actually EXAMINE and EVALUATE them. It saves SO much time to declare oneself right by fiat. It allows one's bubble to remain intact much faster and surer than any honest evaluation...] There's NOTHING spiritually authoritative in that field. It can be useful for verification at times for someone who does already have some spiritual insights, but it's not what it's members tout it to be. ["Spiritually authoritative" meaning, an angel drops in and announces "this is the correct text". If that's the case, I agree. Otherwise, your casual dismissal shows an ignorance of the fields and a haste to dismiss them without a glance.] I'm out of the deal, WW. Never was in in the first place. [...otherwise, you'd demonstrate your own claim was hot air, and I'd spank you with a paddle again, even with a 3-for-1 handicap. Care to disprove it? Please, please try.] Now to all the folks at home, tell THEM what the great discoveries are and I'll look the other way. [My offer was to demonstrate the substance of BOTH our claims- especially since yours is an assertion based on "faith" rather than on "evidence". I've noticed that every time I ask for documentation of your claims, you run off- even when I offer something of greater value in exchange. Supposedly, you're right and the rest of us are wrong- but your claims can't hold up to even casual scrutiny or even a comparison. You know, if you ever actually WERE right, you might salvage your reputation somewhat, earn a little respect, and people might conceivably read some post of yours and agree sometime. For you, that would be a rich prize. Too bad it's unattainable.] Tell THEM what you meant when you wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago." [i made you an offer. I STILL never agreed to you assigning "homework". I'm ready to support my claim as soon as I have a reason- which, in this case, means actually seeing you offer something of SUBSTANCE. Yet again, you've weaselled out. If I really AM bluffing-which, supposedly, I've been doing- there's a very easy way to demonstrate it....] ======== Oh, and Dan? Mike's hoping you'll jump in and do his work FOR him. If you offer ANYTHING, he'll do his usual "see-that's what I meant all along." Figured you'd want to know that BEFORE he pulls it again.

This is a tricky subject to cover WELL here....

Make up your mind, Mike. Did you really want to know what's been uncovered, (no you don't) or do you just want to presume that anything you've never heard of, doesn't exist (bingo), especially since it discredits your theology? I'm waiting for one (just one) source from Mike that suggests "tattered remnants", just one sign that Mike didn't toss out all the evidence and then decide there WAS no evidence. Then we can discuss that and the three (two more than one) sources I promised. I didn't ask Mike prove himself as capable as WordWolf, or even HALF as good. I asked for Mike to prove himself 1/3 as good as WordWolf, which is a goal Mike may potentially reach. This new "insightful comment" - "BS"- is this really the closes Mike can do in backing up his claim? Is he honestly and truly THAT incompetent that even the SLIGHTEST proof of his position is impossible? We'll see. If his followups are equally "insightful", then we have our answer.

Lest we lose the context of that comment....

Trade you three for one, Mike. Mention any ONE and discuss, then I'll mention THREE and discuss ALL THREE. Surely with a handicap that big, you can come up with SOMETHING.

Correctamundo, Oakspear.

The singer said of the song's opening guitar riff that he found one riff that escaped Robert Plant and the others who discovered most of the good riffs.

Some time ago, I read about one that said something like this: "Here lies (name) who was accidentally shot by his butler who was cleaning his gun. 'Well done, good and faithful servant.' " Sarcasm, I see, is not a new invention. ========= I think the most memorable one I've seen was ordered by a man's ex-wife and mistress. It currently sits atop his grave in Montreal's Cimetiere Notre-Dames-des-Neiges. "John Free your body and soul Unfold your powerful wings Climb up the highest mountains Kick your feet up in the air You may now live forever Or return to this earth Unless you feel good where you are! Missed by your friends." What's so memorable? Look at the epitaph more closely. Okay, focus on the first letter of each line....