In PFAL, Wierwille notes the distinction between "thoroughly" and "throughly."
In truth, the latter is an archaic form of the former. They mean precisely the same thing (Wierwille failed to follow his own principle of interpreting words according to their Biblical usage).
We already know and understand that when men take biblical words and "use them" in modern day nomenclature, they often and they do become degraded. Example: Throughly = thoroughly is no more equal to each other biblically than the word idios = idiot -- because contemporary nomenclature would likewise tell us "idios" is the archaic form of the former: idiot.
Discussion: We understand and acknowledge that Wierwille was trying to teach the principle of reading that which is written. That principle is valid, and this is a good example of the need to read the Bible carefully. But Wierwille was in error when he explained the distinction between "thoroughly" and "thoroughly."
There is no distinction.
(from "Actual errors in PFAL)
Anybody can make any kind of assertion or claim they want, for the true biblical meaning of idios is: "private" or "one's own".
But one would do well to remember the "Actual errors in PFAL" were also written initially by: idios-es.
According to the argument you have just presented: "There is no distinction", we are now able to correctly and likewise conclude that all (without exception) the idios-es who brought us these "Actual errors in PFAL" = idiots!!!
I certainly see how there is no difference now.
Thank you so much for correcting me on this point: "There is no distinction" there.
(I also believe a part of Mr. T-Bones recent accusations of: "vp's plagiarism, Scripture twisting, and re-defining words [exemplified by one of vp's "disciples" in post # 1011] was under God's direction." - the part that I highlighted in blue has now been addressed futher. Whether or not he acknowledges that is another story.)
I suppose you might have some sort of point if you could actually demonstrate that the teaching on "private interpretation" is, itself, an accurate and "right dividing" of scripture.
Kinda like defining a word without using it in the definition.
By the way, you do realize you just called me an "idiot", don't you?
....(I also believe a part of Mr. T-Bones recent accusations of: "vp's plagiarism, Scripture twisting, and re-defining words [exemplified by one of vp's "disciples" in post # 1011]was under God's direction." - the part that I highlighted in blue has now been addressed futher. Whether or not he acknowledges that is another story.)
Tut tut…no need to be so formal here…just call me Mister.
...We miss an awful lot when we just "blow stuff off" and we don't bother to stop and think critically about the words we often use - so why would it be any different when we come to reading the scriptures? If we would only stop, slow down, and think more carefully about what we read (and even what we say) we might (as I had stated earlier) be able to get a better understanding of the heart of the matter. This is where it begins - that is, in one's ability to manifest the more than abundant life for themselves.
Perhaps if you practice what you preach you may actually have something of merit to contribute to this thread…In other words, instead of regurgitating the words of a deluded idiot [which amounts to nothing more than reveling in the mindless absorption of his drivel] – apply some critical thinking to his stuff and you may come up with something intellectually engaging.
Here is how (and this is just one of many examples we were given in PFAL - but I think it was by far the best one):
John 12:32
And I [Jesus] if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw allmen unto me.
As Dr. W. explained in PFAL: Now, has everyone in your community been drawn unto the Lord Jesus Christ? Of course they haven't. So here the word "all" would not be all without exception, (because not everyone in your community has been called or believes on the Lord Jesus Christ) but rather, allwith distinction - "all" those whom the Lord has called - all those whom he has distinctly called.
FOR SHAME!
HOW DARE THE ADVOCATES OF FAITHFULNESS TO THE WRITTEN WORD OF VPW SO DISTORT WHAT HE WROTE!
Here is what pg-65 and 66 say in the Orange Book:
"Every time 'all' appears, one must ask himself what the word 'all' means, because in the Bible the word 'all' is used in one of two ways:
it is either all without exception or all without distinction."
[italics courtesy of vpw!]
"All without distinction means everyone in a certain designated class or group.
If one wrongly considers the word 'all', he will never rightly understand the Word of God or get its full impact.
John 12:32
And I {Jesus}, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Is that all without exception or is it all without distinction? The answer is obvious. We know that not everybody in our
community is a Christian; therefore not all without exception have been drawn to Him. All who have believed, all without distinction,
are the ones who have been drawn."
Mind you,
the double-bind is that vpw was WRONG in his explanation.
We know that because he gives the OPPOSITE explanation in a different book.
If one were to actually think that vpw's books are God-breathed, one would be in a terrible bind here,
since vpw claims God-breathed works are inerrant, are free of error,
and there is a mathematical contradiction between two of his books.
This means it is impossible for both statements to be correct-since they are mutually exclusive.
However, right now we're discussing what he actually SAID in the Orange Book, which was incorrectly quoted.
This is a prime example where we don't allways (pun intended) think critically when we often read the scriptures, or even in our conversations with one another. Another prime example would be in the usage of the words "throughly" and "thoroughly" - as we were also shown in II Timothy 3:17:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly (it's not the word thoroughly, there is no "o" between the letter h and the letter r) furnished (the word for furnished here should be perfected. The word is exartizo, it is the adverb. The word "artios", translated "perfect" is the noun while exartizo is the adverb, so to be consistant in our translation then the word should have been translated: "perfected". i.e. perfect, throughly -that is, through and through and throughly perfected unto all good works).
I recall there was a discussion a while back on GSC where someone had said these words "throughly" and "thoroughly" mean the exact same thing. Perhaps they do in our modern day nomenclature, but not according to the Word of God. Dr W. addressed the same remark in PFAL ... He said, "Now that's what you're going to say (that is, that throughly and thoroughly mean the exact same thing - and of course, people still think these words mean the same thing today) but that's not what I'm going to say. Then he goes on to demonstrate how one can wash their hands "thoroughly" but one cannot wash their hands throughly because throughly implies an inside job.
This is a prime example where SOME of us add additional meanings to what we read.
What the Orange Book says is NOT "Now that's what you're going to say...."
It says at the bottom of pg-90 and into pg-91:
"When we do not read what is written, how can we expect to understand the Word of God? People are constantly reading into it. Our minds
project rather than read. It is basic that we read what is written. II Timothy 3:17 does not say 'thoroughly', it says 'throughly'. You may ask,
'What is the difference?' You see, I can wash hands thoroughly, but I cannot wash my hands throughly."
There's nothing of him saying "Now that's what you're going to say" or "people still think these words mean the same thing today."
Someone can think he wrote that, but that is a failure to read what is written. When we do not read what is written, how can we expect
to understand it? Adding words, changing words is not reading what is written-it is what vpw called 'private interpretation.'
Finally, let's address this unsupported assertion: "Perhaps they do [mean the exact same thing] in our modern-day nomenclature,
but not according to the Word of God."
I'm glad we all agree that the modern words "thoroughly" and "throughly" mean the same thing, which pretty well eliminated
the claim in the first place.
However, someone's rather insistent on trying to find excuse after excuse not to learn better after reading an error.
So, I'll go the extra mile (or at least a few meters.)
Is there some sort of special meaning of "throughly" in the Word of God, such that it means an internal, an "inside job"?
It's the Greek word "exartizo". Exartizo, when used IN the Word of God, carries the following meanings, in the following
passages... (And these are ALL the other passages it's used in....)
II Timothy 3:17 (the passage under discussion)
KJV
17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
NASB
17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Acts 21:5
KJV
5And when we had accomplished those days, we departed and went our way; and they all brought us on our way, with wives and children, till we were out of the city: and we kneeled down on the shore, and prayed.
NASB
5When our days there were ended, we left and started on our journey, while they all, with wives and children, escorted us until we were out of the city After kneeling down on the beach and praying, we said farewell to one another.
Bullinger said, of II Timothy III:17, that it means "to fit out or equip fully, to be put in perfect readiness for, complete."
(Definition of "furnish" pg-313, Greek Lexicon.)
So, there is NOTHING in God's Word, concerning the word "exartizo", that either states, suggests, or implies that it is an
INTERNAL or INSIDE JOB.
(How did the disciples complete an INSIDE JOB on the calendar before leaving that city?
Please spare me the wild rewriting of the English language or the sophistry it would take to change the meaning....)
===
In short,
this post managed to misrepresent what the Bible said,
while misrepresenting what vpw said AT THE SAME TIME.
In PFAL, Wierwille notes the distinction between "thoroughly" and "throughly."
In truth, the latter is an archaic form of the former. They mean precisely the same thing (Wierwille failed to follow his own principle of interpreting words according to their Biblical usage).
Discussion: We understand and acknowledge that Wierwille was trying to teach the principle of reading that which is written. That principle is valid, and this is a good example of the need to read the Bible carefully. But Wierwille was in error when he explained the distinction between "thoroughly" and "thoroughly."
SOME of us are still interested in forgiveness, in spite checkered past of this thread. I'll admit, it does seem like a quilting party some times here.
If I Cor 3 were looked at carefully we can see (and later imitate) God's method of giving out (like in forGIVEness) rewards for walking in the light, and allowing people to punish themselves with darkness if they insist.
LOL, shell... i don't think they are talking about "forgiveness" anymore...
personally, i have forgiven everybody! (a long time ago)
however, that doesn't mean i am going to propagate unbiblical doctrines...
btw, that orange book is scary...
what's the difference between "all without exception" and "all without distinction"??
not a dang thing!
I agree, that forgiveness does not entail turning the other cheek and allowing another punch to the jaw, nor should we entertain bad doctrine to smooth over disputes.
But EVEN I can see (without careful study) that there is a difference between "all without exception" and "all without distinction." I also know there is a third phrase that pops up once in the collaterals (GMWD) and that's "all WITH distinction."
I think I can venture a tiny into this. WhattheHey may need to correct me, but here goes.
Place two sheets of paper on a table, each blank except for a circle drawn in the middle of each. Now take a crayon and shade the whole left sheet with color, while on the right sheet color in just the circle.
The left sheet is "all without exception" and the right sheet is "all without distinction."
If I Cor 3 were looked at carefully we can see (and later imitate) God's method of giving out (like in forGIVEness) rewards for walking in the light, and allowing people to punish themselves with darkness if they insist.
Interesting concept.
I think the insisting will be there though, in a different way. Dark and Light.
Place two sheets of paper on a table, each blank except for a circle drawn in the middle of each. Now take a crayon and shade the whole left sheet with color, while on the right sheet color in just the circle.
The left sheet is "all without exception" and the right sheet is "all without distinction."
Hey Hey, did I get it right?
You are joking, aren't you?
That's, perhaps the most moronic explanation I've ever heard.
Now, before you get your panties in a bunch, I did not call you a moron, I said the explanation was moronic.
Try this, why don't you.
Present that same demonstration to someone who knows nothing about TWI and observe their response.
"All without exception" means the same thing as "all without distinction".
You don't need a PhD in English to understand that.
I won't take the time to respond to every concern, as apparently your main concern is this:
....
We know that because he [VPW] gives the OPPOSITE explanation in a different book.
Ok. I am willing to investigate and look into this further. Please name the books where there is an opposite explanation.
If one were to actually think that vpw's books are God-breathed, one would be in a terrible bind here, since vpw claims God-breathed works are inerrant, are free of error,
I am not aware of anyplace where VPW ever claimed this. Moreover, VPW claimed, "Not everything VPW necessarilly writes is God-breathed." (And I am just quoting that from memory ... actually from what another poster here brought to light a while back and not the written form of PFAL verbatim. I long lost the written PFAL, so my recollection of the written form of PFAL could be hazy.)
The only claim VPW ever made is that the bible itself - is what is actually God-Breathed. "ALL scripture is "God-Breathed". In the film class VPW talkes and discusses the word: "ALL" long before he talkes about and discusss what is: "God-Breathed." That is: "ALL SCRIPTURE - WITHOUT EXCEPTION, is God-breathed."
1st. We learned how to rightly divide the Word of God by "the will of man" -- not by "revelation". For example, VPW stated in PFAL: You are sitting and learning this information by the will of man. For example: YOU willed to be in this class on Power For Abundant Living."
What often comes to us by the "will of man" - even the truth of the Word of God at times for example, will not always necessarily be "God-breathed", however the Word of God itself will be God-breathed - provided the individual had spoken it verbatum.
The words in Psalm 14:1 "... there is no God." are still God-breathed words there, because they are verbatim, and a man himself may even will to say , "there is no God", but what he would then be speaking would not be "God-breathed", as would have just forgotten the first part of that verse ... "The fool hath said in his heart, etc."
It is so often that way with the "will of man" -- to forget certain words ...
and there is a mathematical contradiction between two of his books.
This means it is impossible for both statements to be correct-since they are mutually exclusive.
Not necessarily so, as the PFAL "Studies in Abundant Living" books were also written: "by the will of man". If the initial PFAL books were "God-breathed", then they would not need to go through these "revisions". However, revelation does not need to go through "revisions" but it is that "revelation" that we are ultimately after and recapturing. ....
That's, perhaps the most moronic explanation I've ever heard.
Now, before you get your panties in a bunch, I did not call you a moron, I said the explanation was moronic.
Try this, why don't you.
Present that same demonstration to someone who knows nothing about TWI and observe their response.
"All without exception" means the same thing as "all without distinction".
You don't need a PhD in English to understand that.
Thanks for the laundry saving tip, and the grammar lesson, both rolled into one: (nouns insult but adjectives don't)
Speaking of "moronic" you might want to Google "Venn Diagrams" and "Boolean Logic" to read up on it more. Maybe the moronic computer engineers and mathematicians who use them could use a little straightening out by your insight.
Come on, really though, do you actually want to learn this?
What's the difference between "exception" and "distinction" ?
Are you saying they are 100% synonymous?
Of course they are not.
Same with "all without exception" and "all without distinction." They're SPELLED differently, so they CAN have different meanings. Different spelling = different meaning, usually.
Many authors use idiomatic expressions of their own, or idioms that are not generally popular. In God's Word we want to know how HE uses the word "all" and not how YOU use the word "all." Dr taught that we could see more clearly if we knew this when we come across GOD using that word. If you want to embrace your own idiomatic usage of "all" then fine, it doesn't affect me. But if you want to know what is written in PFAL when you come across that word, then you will have to yield to the author's use of that word.
Most grads only ever thought of applying "all without exception" and "all without distinction" to their KJVs, but the ultimate application is in written PFAL when it occurs in the text placed between KJV verses.
The same is true for "Jesus Christ" and "Christ Jesus" and "Jesus" and "Christ" and "The Lord Jesus Christ" etc. All those phrases have different meanings as Dr taught us. This is useful to know for our KJV reading, but ESPECIALLY USEFUL for the written PFAL passages placed between KJV verses.
Come on, really though, do you actually want to learn this?
What's the difference between "exception" and "distinction" ?
Are you saying they are 100% synonymous?
Of course they are not.
Same with "all without exception" and "all without distinction." They're SPELLED differently, so they CAN have different meanings. Different spelling = different meaning, usually.
Many authors have idiomatic expressions of their own, or that are not generally popular. In God's Word we want to know how HE uses the word "all" and not how YOU use the word "all." Dr taught that we could see more clearly if we knew this when we come across GOD using that word. If you want to embrace your own idiomatic usage of "all" then fine, it doesn't affect me. But if you want to know what is written in PFAL when you come across that word, then you will have to yield to the author's use of that word.
Most grads only ever thought of applying "all without exception" and "all without distinction" to their KJVs, but the ultimate application is in written PFAL when it occurs in the text placed between KJV verses.
The same is true for "Jesus Christ" and "Christ Jesus" and "Jesus" and "Christ" and "The Lord Jesus Christ" etc. All those phrases have different meanings as Dr taught us. This is useful to know for our KJV reading, but ESPECIALLY USEFUL for the written PFAL passages placed between KJV verses.
Speak English, Mike
It seems to be the most commonly used language on this site.
Nearly every word in any dictionary has multiple definitions.
Add to that the not-so-common dialects like I mentioned above and each word can have a wide range of meaning.
No, I'll decline your invitation to speak the more common dialects. Among grads I encourage growing up into PFAL English, an admittedly uncommon language, but a far more powerful one. It's a necessary one if you want to read PFAL with the understanding the author intended.
If you want to read "One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest" and want to get the author intended meaning, you'll have to get to know what KEN KESEY's definition of the word "combine" is and a few other Kesey-isms, or it's deeper meaning will fly over YOUR nest.
***
PS - The idea of PFAL English is tied to Mark 16's "new tongues" for the Appearing Administration as opposed to old SIT of the Grace Administration. Reference I Cor 13 where tongues cease... more developing as Drudge would say....
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
128
169
106
102
Popular Days
Feb 19
54
Feb 26
50
Feb 22
47
Feb 25
40
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 128 posts
Mike 169 posts
Ham 106 posts
waysider 102 posts
Popular Days
Feb 19 2008
54 posts
Feb 26 2008
50 posts
Feb 22 2008
47 posts
Feb 25 2008
40 posts
Posted Images
T-Bone
Yup – I was – when your posts weren’t Wierwille-centric.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I have more like them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
WTH
I suppose you might have some sort of point if you could actually demonstrate that the teaching on "private interpretation" is, itself, an accurate and "right dividing" of scripture.
Kinda like defining a word without using it in the definition.
By the way, you do realize you just called me an "idiot", don't you?
That's OK-----I forgive you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Tut tut…no need to be so formal here…just call me Mister.
Perhaps if you practice what you preach you may actually have something of merit to contribute to this thread…In other words, instead of regurgitating the words of a deluded idiot [which amounts to nothing more than reveling in the mindless absorption of his drivel] – apply some critical thinking to his stuff and you may come up with something intellectually engaging.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
FOR SHAME!
HOW DARE THE ADVOCATES OF FAITHFULNESS TO THE WRITTEN WORD OF VPW SO DISTORT WHAT HE WROTE!
Here is what pg-65 and 66 say in the Orange Book:
"Every time 'all' appears, one must ask himself what the word 'all' means, because in the Bible the word 'all' is used in one of two ways:
it is either all without exception or all without distinction."
[italics courtesy of vpw!]
"All without distinction means everyone in a certain designated class or group.
If one wrongly considers the word 'all', he will never rightly understand the Word of God or get its full impact.
John 12:32
And I {Jesus}, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Is that all without exception or is it all without distinction? The answer is obvious. We know that not everybody in our
community is a Christian; therefore not all without exception have been drawn to Him. All who have believed, all without distinction,
are the ones who have been drawn."
Mind you,
the double-bind is that vpw was WRONG in his explanation.
We know that because he gives the OPPOSITE explanation in a different book.
If one were to actually think that vpw's books are God-breathed, one would be in a terrible bind here,
since vpw claims God-breathed works are inerrant, are free of error,
and there is a mathematical contradiction between two of his books.
This means it is impossible for both statements to be correct-since they are mutually exclusive.
However, right now we're discussing what he actually SAID in the Orange Book, which was incorrectly quoted.
This is a prime example where SOME of us add additional meanings to what we read.
What the Orange Book says is NOT "Now that's what you're going to say...."
It says at the bottom of pg-90 and into pg-91:
"When we do not read what is written, how can we expect to understand the Word of God? People are constantly reading into it. Our minds
project rather than read. It is basic that we read what is written. II Timothy 3:17 does not say 'thoroughly', it says 'throughly'. You may ask,
'What is the difference?' You see, I can wash hands thoroughly, but I cannot wash my hands throughly."
There's nothing of him saying "Now that's what you're going to say" or "people still think these words mean the same thing today."
Someone can think he wrote that, but that is a failure to read what is written. When we do not read what is written, how can we expect
to understand it? Adding words, changing words is not reading what is written-it is what vpw called 'private interpretation.'
Finally, let's address this unsupported assertion: "Perhaps they do [mean the exact same thing] in our modern-day nomenclature,
but not according to the Word of God."
I'm glad we all agree that the modern words "thoroughly" and "throughly" mean the same thing, which pretty well eliminated
the claim in the first place.
However, someone's rather insistent on trying to find excuse after excuse not to learn better after reading an error.
So, I'll go the extra mile (or at least a few meters.)
Is there some sort of special meaning of "throughly" in the Word of God, such that it means an internal, an "inside job"?
It's the Greek word "exartizo". Exartizo, when used IN the Word of God, carries the following meanings, in the following
passages... (And these are ALL the other passages it's used in....)
II Timothy 3:17 (the passage under discussion)
KJV
17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
NASB
17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Acts 21:5
KJV
5And when we had accomplished those days, we departed and went our way; and they all brought us on our way, with wives and children, till we were out of the city: and we kneeled down on the shore, and prayed.
NASB
5When our days there were ended, we left and started on our journey, while they all, with wives and children, escorted us until we were out of the city After kneeling down on the beach and praying, we said farewell to one another.
Bullinger said, of II Timothy III:17, that it means "to fit out or equip fully, to be put in perfect readiness for, complete."
(Definition of "furnish" pg-313, Greek Lexicon.)
So, there is NOTHING in God's Word, concerning the word "exartizo", that either states, suggests, or implies that it is an
INTERNAL or INSIDE JOB.
(How did the disciples complete an INSIDE JOB on the calendar before leaving that city?
Please spare me the wild rewriting of the English language or the sophistry it would take to change the meaning....)
===
In short,
this post managed to misrepresent what the Bible said,
while misrepresenting what vpw said AT THE SAME TIME.
Quite a remarkable accomplishment....
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
Maybe it's the paint fumes, maybe it's something else but I can't understand why there are over 50 pages on who/how/what/when/why to forgive
:blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think it's a profound disinterest in forgiving on the part of many.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
LOL, shell... i don't think they are talking about "forgiveness" anymore...
personally, i have forgiven everybody! (a long time ago)
however, that doesn't mean i am going to propagate unbiblical doctrines...
btw, that orange book is scary...
what's the difference between "all without exception" and "all without distinction"??
not a dang thing!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bowtwi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Abuse of the heart of forgiveness is a big problem.
People will hold it over you like a club ready to strike.
Some people anyway.
Forgiveness is no strings attached either way.
Not to be enforced or used against you now.
We all will experience it soon enough.
Like we've never seen it before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
SOME of us are still interested in forgiveness, in spite checkered past of this thread. I'll admit, it does seem like a quilting party some times here.
If I Cor 3 were looked at carefully we can see (and later imitate) God's method of giving out (like in forGIVEness) rewards for walking in the light, and allowing people to punish themselves with darkness if they insist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I agree, that forgiveness does not entail turning the other cheek and allowing another punch to the jaw, nor should we entertain bad doctrine to smooth over disputes.
But EVEN I can see (without careful study) that there is a difference between "all without exception" and "all without distinction." I also know there is a third phrase that pops up once in the collaterals (GMWD) and that's "all WITH distinction."
I think I can venture a tiny into this. WhattheHey may need to correct me, but here goes.
Place two sheets of paper on a table, each blank except for a circle drawn in the middle of each. Now take a crayon and shade the whole left sheet with color, while on the right sheet color in just the circle.
The left sheet is "all without exception" and the right sheet is "all without distinction."
Hey Hey, did I get it right?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Interesting concept.
I think the insisting will be there though, in a different way. Dark and Light.
What's the difference between darkness and light?
And how you move in it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You are joking, aren't you?
That's, perhaps the most moronic explanation I've ever heard.
Now, before you get your panties in a bunch, I did not call you a moron, I said the explanation was moronic.
Try this, why don't you.
Present that same demonstration to someone who knows nothing about TWI and observe their response.
"All without exception" means the same thing as "all without distinction".
You don't need a PhD in English to understand that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks for the laundry saving tip, and the grammar lesson, both rolled into one: (nouns insult but adjectives don't)
Speaking of "moronic" you might want to Google "Venn Diagrams" and "Boolean Logic" to read up on it more. Maybe the moronic computer engineers and mathematicians who use them could use a little straightening out by your insight.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Here's the "wiki" on Venn Diagrams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram
Here's the "wiki" on Boolean Logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_logic
Would you be so kind as to show me how this demonstrates that "all without exception" is somehow different from "all without distinction"?
(What with me not being a computer engineer or mathematician, ya know?)
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Come on, really though, do you actually want to learn this?
What's the difference between "exception" and "distinction" ?
Are you saying they are 100% synonymous?
Of course they are not.
Same with "all without exception" and "all without distinction." They're SPELLED differently, so they CAN have different meanings. Different spelling = different meaning, usually.
Many authors use idiomatic expressions of their own, or idioms that are not generally popular. In God's Word we want to know how HE uses the word "all" and not how YOU use the word "all." Dr taught that we could see more clearly if we knew this when we come across GOD using that word. If you want to embrace your own idiomatic usage of "all" then fine, it doesn't affect me. But if you want to know what is written in PFAL when you come across that word, then you will have to yield to the author's use of that word.
Most grads only ever thought of applying "all without exception" and "all without distinction" to their KJVs, but the ultimate application is in written PFAL when it occurs in the text placed between KJV verses.
The same is true for "Jesus Christ" and "Christ Jesus" and "Jesus" and "Christ" and "The Lord Jesus Christ" etc. All those phrases have different meanings as Dr taught us. This is useful to know for our KJV reading, but ESPECIALLY USEFUL for the written PFAL passages placed between KJV verses.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Speak English, Mike
It seems to be the most commonly used language on this site.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Nearly every word in any dictionary has multiple definitions.
Add to that the not-so-common dialects like I mentioned above and each word can have a wide range of meaning.
No, I'll decline your invitation to speak the more common dialects. Among grads I encourage growing up into PFAL English, an admittedly uncommon language, but a far more powerful one. It's a necessary one if you want to read PFAL with the understanding the author intended.
If you want to read "One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest" and want to get the author intended meaning, you'll have to get to know what KEN KESEY's definition of the word "combine" is and a few other Kesey-isms, or it's deeper meaning will fly over YOUR nest.
***
PS - The idea of PFAL English is tied to Mark 16's "new tongues" for the Appearing Administration as opposed to old SIT of the Grace Administration. Reference I Cor 13 where tongues cease... more developing as Drudge would say....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Which reminds me of a deleted scene....
Nurse Ratched, Nurse Ratched! The Chief voted! Now will you please turn on the television set? And don't go slipping in one of those PFAL tapes again!
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Hey WTH,
But ἰδιῶται is............
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.