Raf

No more cheating! It's cheating! Ghostbusters?

The moment you put glue on it, it's not a pizza.

Twister Carey Elwes (sp?) The Princess Bride

Well then.. Lord of the rings: The Two Towers Brad Dourif One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

What the Hay, You've completely missed my point, on a number of levels. First, you've justified an interpretation of the verse using linguistic acrobatics instead of a plain reading of the texts. If you want to convince yourself that your right cheek is of a different kind than your left cheek, be my guest: I've nothing to say about that. Frankly, I have no time whatsoever to discuss it. But even if allos means "another of a different kind" in that case, it's not the presence of a confirming case that establishes Wierwille was right about the definition: it's the presence of contradicting cases that proves he was wrong. There are plenty of cases where allos is clearly "another of the same kind," not "another of a different kind" as Wierwille said and originally wrote. That means he was wrong. I have no problem with him being wrong about this. It is one of the farthest things from a big deal that I could imagine. Even Mike wouldn't care about Wierwille being wrong about this! That's how irrelevant it is. But more importantly, you addressed a point I was not making, in any way, shape or form. Wierwille said and wrote that "allos" is "another when more than two are involved." There are multiple Biblical references to show that he was flat out wrong in that definition. Remember that Wierwille's argument on these definitions is that their sharp mathematical accuracy and scientific precision help prove what he was saying about the four crucified. But any argument on the four crucified that relies on Wierwille's definitions of heteros and allos is utterly discredited.

Field of Dreams? Shoeless Joe never did finish paying for the Black Sox scandal...

Other: allos when only two are involved... Matt 5:39; 12:13; 27:61 Mark 3:5 Luke 6:10, 29 Not comprehensive, this list. Heteros used as other when more than two are involved: Matt 12:45 Luke 3:18; 4:43; 10:1; 11:16... You get the idea.

By jove, I think I've got it![/font]

We love you, Chas!

I've been looking at the Strong's Concordance entries for "other" and it's almost amusing. Allos (243) is FREQUENTLY used when only two are involved. Heteros (2087) is FREQUENTLY used when more than two are involved. Am I the only one who didn't check this for years? (Truthfully, I stopped caring about that definition when I read Bullinger and learned the same/different kind distinction, but I never went the next step of trying to verify or refute the "only two/more than two" definition).

-->

happyhappyhappyhappyhappyhappyhappy BIRTHDAY!

Viggo Mortensen Psycho Anne Heche

True, but do you really want to go through 20 Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin movies and 40 Abbott and Costellos?

I think I owe you both a cup of coffee. Welcome to the Cafe. And to freedom.

Chas, We were messing with you. :)-->

Amen, Killer Equestrian!

bandannas signal interests. For example, if I'm interested in receiving a handshake, I'll wear a transparent bandana in my back pocket. Other colors signal other, err, interests (see page one of this thread).

I disagree. The language in the figure still has to be consistent. This is a plain old ordinary every day error. And yet, that is what VPW did. Quite often, no less. Precisely, and that includes the hard and fast rules set forth by VPW, which would mean that he was (drumroll please) wrong about the mathematical exactness and scientific precision of the words as he defined them.

To answer your first comment, when Jesus says "turn the other cheek," he uses allos, which is inconsistent with Wierwille's definition, your declaration that the usages are "fairly consistent" notwithstanding (unless, of course, Jesus was counting butt cheeks too, but somehow I doubt that). In Luke 4:43, there's a reference to "other cities." Clearly, more than two are involved. But guess which word is used? That's right, heteros, the word that's only supposed to be used when only two are involved. Wrong definition for both words. As for the rest, we've been going over that through this whole thread! Wierwille states in the class that allos is another of a different kind, and heteros is another of the same kind. The opposite is true. Wierwille apparently wrote this in the first printing of PFAL, but it is not in subsequent printings.

Cute, Steve! Can we avoid going right back to the same actor as the previous link, please. :)--> Albert Finney Erin Brokovich Julia Roberts

Well, that settles that. Thank you, Galen. Clearly, Wierwille got those definitions 100% backwards, and it appears deliberately so (that is, it wasn't just confusing the words and definitions, but actively getting them wrong, misunderstanding their meanings and teaching the wrong thing). He had to know that Bullinger taught the opposite definitions. I refuse to ascribe idiocy to him.

You know what I say... Better the fakiest blush... and in other news... Actual line in a story I edited today about a gay/lesbian country western dance convention: None of the straight people in the office understood why I was laughing so hard. The gay folks laughed harder.

Paging Karl Kahler. Greasespot Cafe paging occasional customer Karl Kahler. Please respond...

George Carlin