Raf

First, the fact that you don't know the meaning of certain words does not make those words meaningless. It makes you unaware of their meaning. Second, what's with the personal attack, dummy?

Yo' Mama! Sorry, couldn't resist. Of course dialogue adds something. But when the artist makes a decision to pull dialogue from the understanding of the audience, it doesn't mean something's been taken away. It means he's appealing to other faculties of your mind. Your mind does have other faculties, doesn't it? Or do you need everything spelled out for you? Hey, I don't think those guys with the hammers and nails are terribly fond of that Y'shua character. -->

Ok, I see the subject line now. But you don't get that nifty window where you can refer to the original thread while composing your reply.

QQ, That's like a non-Italian speaker reading an untranslated script of La Boheme and saying, "Beautiful, huh?" The beauty is in the music and the performances, not merely in the language. The Passion seeks to transcend our inability to understand the words being spoken, communicating its message through powerful images and a story with which we are all familiar. You strike me as the kind of guy who would b-and moan about the script to a silent movie. Fascinating, huh?

How about some stuff, besides PFAL, that has not stood the test of time? The movies you look at today and think to yourself, I liked this? Gladiator, to me, is the most forgettable Best Picture winning movie of the last 25 years. And one of these days, hopefully soon, the Academy voters will have another opportunity to compare Saving Private Ryan (a magnificent film) to Shakespeare in Love (a passable movie) and recognize their crime against Spielberg.

Have you ever sat through an opera? I sat through Billy Budd, which is in English. Didn't understand a blooming word. The operatic style of singing often defies understanding simply as a matter of style. Oh, and by the way, my Spanish is so-so, which means I would probably understand if an Italian asked me how I'm doing and where the bathroom is, but would not get me through the opening aria of La Boheme. Point is, understanding what is sung is not a prerequisite for enjoying opera, just as I suspect will be the case with this movie. :)-->

Which of your favorite movies have stood the test of time, and which have not? And please, avoid some of the more obvious ones, like The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind and PLEASE GOD DON'T mention The Godfather. I'm looking for movies you liked that everyone knows, or not, but now, years later, you look back and you think, hey, this movie really... ROCKY: It's hard to see Rocky through the prism of Rocky IV and especially Rocky V. But damned if this isn't a chick flick in a lot of ways, isn't it? I mean, what are the chief attributes of this movie? It's sweet. UGH! Anything but that! But unlike every other Rocky movie, this first one was a great FILM. And speaking of Stallone: FIRST BLOOD: This movie kicks butt. I mean, this is a terrific movie. One long action scene. This was, of course, before Rambo became a cartoon character (literally and figuratively). SCREAM: Still clever. Still hip. Still scary. AIRPLANE! Will never, ever, ever stop being funny. On the other hand... RETURN OF THE JEDI: a.k.a. the Muppet Movie 3. This was the beginning of the end of the Star Wars saga. Yes, it still had enough juice in it to make the grade, but isn't that scene between Luke and Leia in the woods a tad pathetic. "My father has it. I have it. And,... my sister has it. Yes, Leia, it's you." Who writes this crap? WILLY WONKA: I'll say it. This movie SUCKED. It's one big long headache of a movie and I hated every, do you hear me, every single character. So there!

The way I see it, if Gibson, an English speaker, is making this movie with an English speaking audience in mind, then he has artistic and personal reasons for not using subtitles. I can sit through La Boheme without English subtitles. I can surely sit through The Passion.

They've made the subtitles. Gibson hasn't made up his mind whether or not to use them. He's currently leaning against it, last I checked anyway.

i've never seen a thread where you can add a subject line to replies. Even in this thread, the first two replies have subject lines, so this thread should allow it, right? Well, it don't. Is it limited to moderators?

The glasses hurt. The effects were disappointing. There was no plot. Nothing made me smile. Nothing made me laugh. The closest thing to fun was a "beat me over the head with a stick" parallel to The Matrix. But even that lost its luster after the 31st or 32nd reference. (I did half expect to see Keanu Reeves pop in and say "woah.") A real yawner.

Finally got around to seeing this the other day. What fun!

NNnnnnnnnnnnnOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! It Just Won't Die!!!!!!

I don't think anything could ever stop Mike from liking himself. :)-->

Actually, Mike, most journalists have the same problem with the word basically, which is basically overused and basically can be eliminated from any sentence without altering the basic meaning of the sentence.

I remember that too.

Wow. Thanks for the compliment. And good point about "abundant life."

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

The Actual Errors thread can get a little trivial at times if you don't keep its purpose in mind. I figure if you can't admit that at least one of those errors is, in fact, an error, then you're just not being honest. Once you admit to yourself that an error is an error, the thread has lost its function. Move on to something more substantive. The "Official" Actual Errors list 10 things I liked about the Blue Book. 10 problems I had with the Blue Book.

I don't know about thread sizes (after starting "The," who am I to complain about thread sizes?). But I'll say this: This thread is not about the topic in its title. It's about your overall thesis. That's my observation, anyway. The things that are discussed here are not about the Spiritual/Natural dichotomy and its implications. They're about whether PFAL and the collaterals have replaced the Bible as The Word of God. So if "Part Two" stays on topic, and this one continues to be about its evolved topic, then having two threads will make sense. Based on what I've read of the other thread so far, you're already in danger of losing that fight.

"PFAL Reparo!" HAHAHAHA! It didn't work? Why, of course not! PFAL ain't broke! How you gonna fix it? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

Still, at least he does it on a discussion board. At least he doesn't use this site to shamelessly promote his own. Raf

I think you're all making a strong case that Wierwille was wrong, but no one's made the case yet that he wrote this error down. That's an important part of the criteria. Here's something that, to my knowledge, doesn't fit the criteria, but is interesting nonetheless. My research on this is not complete, so I'm open to debate on this, but... In Living Victoriously, Wierwille writes that God is eternal, without beginning or end, but the life we are promised is everlasting, with a beginning, but with no end. That's why we're promised everlasting life, not eternal life. In truth, "eternal" and "everlasting" are the same word in Greek. Note that Living Victoriously was posthumously edited and therefore cannot qualify as Wierwille's written work. It's just interesting.

I'm a karaoke addict. Does that count? Don't worry about the copyright. The owner's my pal.

Oakspear, As this thread evolved, we tried to look only at errors that are actually in print in the Wierwille canon. So, if you can see in the magazines (which I do not have) or the books (which I do have) where Wierwille wrote what you say about the Godhead-head God, then we might have an actual error (assuming the rest of what you write is not only true, but indisputably so). Def, I think I've looked at some of the John Juedes work for this thread's purposes, except I might have credited his source rather than crediting him. I'm not too sure about that. I know he wrote an interesting challenge to "The Four Crucified," but using a rather loose definition, I consider his conclusions disputable. I know this got tiresome after a while, but in reality, the whole purpose of this thread was to show that the Wierwille books do not meet Wierwille's own definition of what it means to be God-breathed. They contain the kind of miniscule errors Wierwille said would be enough to cause the Bible to fall to pieces (orthotomounta instead of orthotomeo, for example). They contain baseless speculation with no foundation whatsoever in accepted scripture (David WOULD HAVE beheaded Nathan if he had told any other story). They contain significant misinterpretations of obvious Biblical truths (the difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven). The response to these indisputable errors has been to attack us all as "unfit researchers" intent on finding what's wrong. Of course, that's hardly what we were doing. What we were intent on was proving that there are errors in those books. The response to these indisputable errors has been a fundamentally dishonest approach that gloats in evading the valid challenges to the inerrancy of the Wierwille breathed word. I haven't really thought much about returning to this thread because I think its purpose was served. Those who hold Wierwille's works to be God-breathed have not shown the ability to honestly and effectively address a single one of these errors, and at least one has bragged about his antipathy toward doing so. The basis is not the quality of the work here, but a false accusation about our motives. Wierwille's work was not perfect. He never claimed it was. Wierwille's work was not God-breathed. He never claimed it was. Wierwille's work was not intended to replace the Bible as some kind of bizarro-world, "New and Improved Testament." He never claimed it was. If someone's happy disagreeing with the above paragraph, I say go in peace.