quote:You and Rafael both claim that VPW implies that figures are the only markings, because he never says anything else about any other.
You guys sure about that "never" stuff? Seems he implies something else is important, too, and right in the Foundational Class...
Just to show that I'm no respector of persons.... Put Up or Shut Up!!! :)-->
Seriously, by all means, share it with the rest of the class (ooh, a figure of speech!).
The word "only" is not central to my thesis. I used it in a paraphrase and you (humorously) asked me to defend it. I believe it to be a natural interpretation of the words actually used by Wierwille ("figures of speech ARE God's markings," as opposed to "figures of speech are ONE OF God's markings"). But the point is that Wierwille takes the presence of figures of speech to be points that God is emphasizing over other points that do not emply figures of speech. They do no such thing. They only emphasize the point they are making over THE SAME POINT without the figure.
Just because verse A employs a figure does not mean God emphasizes it more than point B, which does not.
Rafael: "And now, ladies and gentlemen, an all new Actual Error. In PFAL, Wierwille writes that a figure of speech is God's way of marking what's important in His Word."
Me: "No, that's true."
Rafael: "At the very least, its an indefensible statement."
Me: "No, it's quite defensible. Figures of speech do emphasize a point."
Rafael: "That's not the point, the point is that Wierwille said figures were the ONLY way points were emphasized."
Me: "No, he didn't."
Rafael: "Well, that's what he IMPLIED."
Me: "No, that's just what you drew from it."
Rafael: "Anyone can see that's what he MEANT."
Me: "Anyone who reads it the same way as you do."
Rafael: "The implication is sufficient."
Me: "So implication is sufficient, even though it's substantially subjective?"
Rafael: "Yes, in the case that it's overwhelmingly obvious that's what was implied."
Me: "Overwhelmingly obvious to you, you mean..."
Rafael: "He never mentioned anything else!"
Me: "He never mentioned 'only' either, apparently..."
Rafael: "Well, 'only' isn't the point..."
Me: "It is precisely the point."
Rafael: "Says WHO?"
Me: "Says YOU! See your third quote from the top."
Rafael: "That's not a quote, it's a bad paraphrase."
Me: "You rely on implications, and gig me for paraphrasing?"
Rafael: "Implications are valid."
Me: "So, if Wierwille implied something else was important...?"
Rafael: "Never happened."
Me: "Never?"
Rafael: "Put up or shut up."
Me: "In pages 10-15 of the expanded Foundational Class syllabus at the back of the AC syllabus, Wierwille writes:
quote:God is perfect; therefore, His Word is perfect.
Therefore the words in the Word are perfect, and
the order of the words in the Word are perfect.
Thus, he implies that both word choice and word order are important as well. Since that implication contradicts your 'only' implication, you're wrong, QED."
Well, you've given me an awful lot to reply to. Where to begin?
Let's begin at the end.
The expanded PFAL syllabus at the end of the Advanced Class syllabus has Wierwille stating, as quoted by Zix:
quote:God is perfect; therefore, His Word is perfect.
Therefore the words in the Word are perfect, and
the order of the words in the Word are perfect.
First of all, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand. Nothing at all. I never disputed the notion that the order of the words in God's Word are perfect. It's not the point of this discussion.
quote:Thus, he implies that both word choice and word order are important as well. Since that implication contradicts your 'only' implication, you're wrong, QED.
The implication you drew most absolutely does not contradict the implication I drew. In fact, you have conveniently ignored the fact that I dropped the word "important" as a product of MY faulty paraphrase (did I criticize you for paraphrasing? You imply that I did).
There are many things that are "important" in studying and understanding God's Word. But Wierwille only lists one way in which we are able to tell whether God is trying to emphasize something, and that is the usage of figures of speech.
I continue to maintain that a figure of speech only emphasizes a point in comparison to THAT SAME POINT, without the figure. You cannot compare the emphasis of two independent points based solely on the employment of a figure of speech. Yet according to Wierwille, no mere mortal can be trusted to decide what to emphasize. So we ask him, how do we know what God wants emphasized? His answer: He employs figure of speech.
That's great. Any other way to know what God wants emphasized?
Yes sir, figures of speech are God's markings as to what He wants emphasized in His Word.
That's great, Doc. Any other ways?
The order of the words in His word are perfect.
That's great, Doc, but it doesn't answer my question.
It implies an answer.
No it doesn't.
Yes it does.
That's not an argument, that's just contradiction. Name one other way in which God emphasizes a point in His Word.
God doesn't leave such interpretations to mere mortals. Not for a second.
So how do we know?
Figures of speech.
Third base! Listen, Doc, is there any other way in anything you wrote that states how God emphasizes a point?
Figures of speech.
Anything else?
I didn't say only.
Okay, fine. Here's another question, Doc. If you have two verses, and one employs a figure of speech, and the other does not, how do you know which verse God wants emphasized?
The one that has a figure of speech is the one God wants emphasized.
Are you sure?
I'm mortal, aren't I?
Okay, so which is emphasized more in God's Word - "Take, Eat, this is my body" or "He is Risen?"
...
Once again, the use of the word "ONLY" is not central to my thesis, which plainly stated is as follows:
The presence of a figure of speech does not indicate that God is emphasizing the point being made over other points that do not contain a figure. This is true in all literature, and it is true in God's Word.
The presence of a figure of speech DOES indicate that the point being made is being emphasized over the alternative method of making the SAME POINT.
A literal statement (He is risen) is sometimes far more heavily emphasized than a figurative one ("lift up your head," Gen 40:13).
All it takes is ONE such example to prove Wierwille's statement wrong. I humbly submit that there is more than one such example in the Word of God.
"The order of the words in His Word are perfect" is not correct.
"The order is perfect" therefore "The order of the words in His Word is perfect" is correct.
Rafael, if you weren't a journalist, and Zix, if you weren't so pedantic, I wouldn't say anything. But in this case, I figured I shouldn't let youse guys get away with it.
I never implied that your implication was less important or less heavily emphasized than my implication. That implication was your implication, not mine.
I mean you are really stretching here. Let me see.
1. "God is perfect; therefore, His Word is perfect.
2. Therefore the words in the Word are perfect, and
3. [therefore] the order of the words in the Word are perfect."
What kind of logic is this? #3 looks like a leap to me. Order is not that significant in Greek many times. The Greek language was developed by humans. How can God take a human invention and make it perfect? Maybe God invented Greek, huh ? ... Yea, like Gore invented the Internet.
Are you now saying that since VPW taught the logically flawed argument above that, he therefore did not imply that God *only* used figures for emphasis?
And this somehow proves that VPW was not in error about emphasis, I mean importance. What was it the we were discussing anyway - importance or emphasis - I forgot. Oh yea, emphasis - it implies importance . And "perfect order" also implies "importance of varying degree to the verses" like figures of speech?
And this somehow proves that Wierwille did not imply "only" when he taught about God's markings the Word with figures for emphasis? Give me a break! Zix, you are slipping. What would your logic professor say?
This has digressed to silliness - not to imply that anyone is silly. ;)-->
Wierwille was wrong dangit. I declare it by fiat. :D-->
I mean you are really stretching here. Let me see.
1. "God is perfect; therefore, His Word is perfect.
2. Therefore the words in the Word are perfect, and
3. [therefore] the order of the words in the Word are perfect."
What kind of logic is this?
There's nothing illogical about this, Goey. If God is perfect, it makes complete sense that His word is perfect. Not that we actually have the original word anymore, but that's another food fight.
#3 looks like a leap to me.
It isn't.
Order is not that significant in Greek many times.
Okay...
The Greek language was developed by humans.
Okay...
How can God take a human invention and make it perfect?
Who said He did? However, having perfect knowledge of Greek, anything He said in Greek would be perfectly communicated to the limits the Greek language was capable of doing so. -->
Maybe God invented Greek, huh ?
Now who's being silly?
... Yea, like Gore invented the Internet.
I think your flywheel has slipped the clutch...
Are you now saying that since VPW taught the logically flawed argument above that, he therefore did not imply that God *only* used figures for emphasis?
Yep. Except that it isn't flawed at all, you see...
And this somehow proves that VPW was not in error about emphasis, I mean importance.
No, it only suggests that you two were in error for inferring that Wierwille preached figures alone were the sole indicator of emphasis.
What was it the we were discussing anyway - importance or emphasis - I forgot. Oh yea, emphasis - it implies importance . And "perfect order" also implies "importance of varying degree to the verses" like figures of speech?
In the case of literal speech, word choice and word order would, in fact, be significant indicators of importance.
And this somehow proves that Wierwille did not imply "only" when he taught about God's markings the Word with figures for emphasis?
This is getting old...No, no, NO! All it proves is that there is reasonable doubt about y'all's inference that he did so.
Give me a break!
Arm? Leg? Skull?
Zix, you are slipping.
Well who greased the Internet? Can we get a mop in here?
What would your logic professor say?
He was Indian, but he spoke understandable English, so it would probably be something like "Why are you arguing with Zixar? He's right, as usual...":D-->
This has digressed to silliness - not to imply that anyone is silly. ;)-->
No silliness inferred...
Wierwille was wrong dangit. I declare it by fiat. :D-->
Ohhh, well in THAT case... I declare myself the winner! Fiat Zix!:D-->
quote:No, it only suggests that you two were in error for inferring that Wierwille preached figures alone were the sole indicator of emphasis.
Even if I were to concede that point, which I don't, Wierwille is still in error for stating that figures of speech emphasize their points over other points in God's Word (or, in Wierwille's words, God would not leave it to a mere mortal to decide what's important in His Word - that's why He used figures of speech).
Look, I've said from the get-go that Wierwille's error is probably one of interpretation, not an "actual error." The fact that you disagree with me on this only proves that point. Can we PLEASE drop this now?
1. "God is perfect; therefore, His Word is perfect.
2. Therefore the words in the Word are perfect, and
3. [therefore] the order of the words in the Word are perfect."
What kind of logic is this?
quote: By Zixar
There's nothing illogical about this, Goey. If God is perfect, it makes complete sense that His word is perfect. Not that we actually have the original word anymore, but that's another food fight.
Zix, you did not address the point. I have no problem with # 1. Actually it is a given that the Word is perfect, the first part was unnecessary. The problem begins with # 2 and beyond. There is a leap from 1 to 2 and a giant leap from 2 to 3.
I was discussing the conclusion and how it was arrived at.
The final product, the Word, is perfect - given and agreed. But, the individual words alone need not be perfect in order to have a "Perfect Word" It is only when the words are combined to form the ideas and the concepts and the truths that God intended that we have "The Word" and perfection.
Question 1: Assuming that the words themselves are "perfect", if I take one of them out of the Word, is that word still perfect?
Question 2: Assuming the same, If I look at a individual word within the Word of God without looking at the words around it, ist that word still perfect ?
Question 3: If I rearrange the order of the words that make up a precept in the Word of God and the precept is still conveyed as before, have I made the Word of God imperfect ?
Human language is imperfect and the words that make up language are imperfect, yet in the case of the "Word", God used these imperfect words in an imperfect human language to convey his truths and precepts which are the Word. It is these truths and precept that are perfect.
Zix, Look at VPW's 1-2-3 logic construct above one more time. Seriously - put down that hot dog and try to be objective and apply your normal standards. Do you really see no problem in the logic there? Do you see a valid argument there?
I see no valid argument at all past the first given, which is rather typical of VPW. Where is the valid argument? ( I understand that conclusion based on an invalid argument *can* be true, as well as one with a false premise or even leaps).
Now let me get this musterd out of my eye.
Rafael, my mama ? Why them's fighting words!
(Goey heaves a big hunk of greasy pot roast at Rafael and runs out the door)
Look, I've said from the get-go that Wierwille's error is probably one of interpretation, not an "actual error."
What kind of crack are you smoking there, guy? Here's the "get-go", in it's entirety:
And now, ladies and gentlemen, an all new Actual Error.
Great Henry Kissinger, man! You even bolded it!
You see why I can't have any sort of logical discussion with you? Cripes!
But just as a chicken will flap around grotesquely after its head has been severed, you continue to spout your clumsy, delusional flailings, oblivious to your ignominious defeat...
[Zixar loads the Creamed-Corn Cannon™...]
Puny journalist, you are now my bitch!
"The life of a superhero is a lonely one, filled with hardship and danger. The few who answer the call must leave comfort, safety, and, often, sanity behind. But someone's gotta stand the heat and stay in the kitchen. Someone's gotta don the oven mitts of all that's right, and strangle the red-hot throat of all that's wrong!"--The Tick makes his entrance
"Well, destiny honks the horn of gotta-go..."
"Awww, I stepped in GUM! Sticky pink devil! Who puts gum on a roof???"
Hmm. Let's see. Either I quote the part where I say "okay, maybe it's an error of interpretation..." or I block the creamed corn with large leaves of Romaine Lettuce and return fire with mashed potatoes.
An all-new potential let's discuss it and see if we agree actual error maybe.
I've really got to stop allowing Zix to write my intros.
Anyways, this comes from Mark Clarke in the doctrinal forum.
quote:I have another suggestion for understanding holy spirit. We were taught pneuma hagion till it came out our ears. Did anyone else ever wonder why we never heard about a study of the Old Testament Hebrew? The Hebrew word ruach is translated spirit, and if you trace its occurrances through the OT you'll find some interesting things. First of all, it is not true that in the OT spirit was only "upon" and not "in" believers. Joseph was said to have spirit in him (Gen. 41:38) and so were Joshua (Num. 27:18) and Daniel (Dan. 6:3). Also note Exodus 28:3; 31:3; 35:31; and Nehemiah 9:30; plus Joel 2:29 which is a prophecy referring to the future outpouring of spirit, and yet it says "upon".
quote: VP insists Nathan was hesitant to reprove David because he was afraid David would have him beheaded. There is nothing in the Scripture to support such a claim.
Wow. It's true:"
Rafael, I don't have the words to say how touched I am to see this. I had thought the PFAL Review project was long forgotten. I still wish I had finished it or could get back to it even two years after its interruption, but I'm still immersed in work and family issues.
I don't visit the GS regularly. I was just passing by, so to speak and I find this.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
208
62
95
53
Popular Days
Jan 3
56
Jan 28
53
Jan 17
52
Jan 27
46
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 208 posts
Jbarrax 62 posts
Zixar 95 posts
Mike 53 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2003
56 posts
Jan 28 2003
53 posts
Jan 17 2003
52 posts
Jan 27 2003
46 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Clear as the difference between all with a distinction and all without distinction. See, to those unaware of the circumstances that brought about this thread, I look like I'm nitpicking to prove Wier
Raf
I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether
Larry P2
And let's not forget the one about "All the women in the Kingdom belong to the King." Which proves that he was a lecherous piece of sh!t communicating his desire for a steady stream of young, gullibl
Raf
Just to show that I'm no respector of persons.... Put Up or Shut Up!!!
:)-->
Seriously, by all means, share it with the rest of the class (ooh, a figure of speech!).
The word "only" is not central to my thesis. I used it in a paraphrase and you (humorously) asked me to defend it. I believe it to be a natural interpretation of the words actually used by Wierwille ("figures of speech ARE God's markings," as opposed to "figures of speech are ONE OF God's markings"). But the point is that Wierwille takes the presence of figures of speech to be points that God is emphasizing over other points that do not emply figures of speech. They do no such thing. They only emphasize the point they are making over THE SAME POINT without the figure.
Just because verse A employs a figure does not mean God emphasizes it more than point B, which does not.
So, what else does Wierwille IMPLY adds emphasis?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
The Story So Far...
Rafael: "And now, ladies and gentlemen, an all new Actual Error. In PFAL, Wierwille writes that a figure of speech is God's way of marking what's important in His Word."
Me: "No, that's true."
Rafael: "At the very least, its an indefensible statement."
Me: "No, it's quite defensible. Figures of speech do emphasize a point."
Rafael: "That's not the point, the point is that Wierwille said figures were the ONLY way points were emphasized."
Me: "No, he didn't."
Rafael: "Well, that's what he IMPLIED."
Me: "No, that's just what you drew from it."
Rafael: "Anyone can see that's what he MEANT."
Me: "Anyone who reads it the same way as you do."
Rafael: "The implication is sufficient."
Me: "So implication is sufficient, even though it's substantially subjective?"
Rafael: "Yes, in the case that it's overwhelmingly obvious that's what was implied."
Me: "Overwhelmingly obvious to you, you mean..."
Rafael: "He never mentioned anything else!"
Me: "He never mentioned 'only' either, apparently..."
Rafael: "Well, 'only' isn't the point..."
Me: "It is precisely the point."
Rafael: "Says WHO?"
Me: "Says YOU! See your third quote from the top."
Rafael: "That's not a quote, it's a bad paraphrase."
Me: "You rely on implications, and gig me for paraphrasing?"
Rafael: "Implications are valid."
Me: "So, if Wierwille implied something else was important...?"
Rafael: "Never happened."
Me: "Never?"
Rafael: "Put up or shut up."
Me: "In pages 10-15 of the expanded Foundational Class syllabus at the back of the AC syllabus, Wierwille writes:
Thus, he implies that both word choice and word order are important as well. Since that implication contradicts your 'only' implication, you're wrong, QED."
Rafael: _______(fill in the blank)_______
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Well, you've given me an awful lot to reply to. Where to begin?
Let's begin at the end.
The expanded PFAL syllabus at the end of the Advanced Class syllabus has Wierwille stating, as quoted by Zix:
First of all, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand. Nothing at all. I never disputed the notion that the order of the words in God's Word are perfect. It's not the point of this discussion.
The implication you drew most absolutely does not contradict the implication I drew. In fact, you have conveniently ignored the fact that I dropped the word "important" as a product of MY faulty paraphrase (did I criticize you for paraphrasing? You imply that I did).
There are many things that are "important" in studying and understanding God's Word. But Wierwille only lists one way in which we are able to tell whether God is trying to emphasize something, and that is the usage of figures of speech.
I continue to maintain that a figure of speech only emphasizes a point in comparison to THAT SAME POINT, without the figure. You cannot compare the emphasis of two independent points based solely on the employment of a figure of speech. Yet according to Wierwille, no mere mortal can be trusted to decide what to emphasize. So we ask him, how do we know what God wants emphasized? His answer: He employs figure of speech.
That's great. Any other way to know what God wants emphasized?
Yes sir, figures of speech are God's markings as to what He wants emphasized in His Word.
That's great, Doc. Any other ways?
The order of the words in His word are perfect.
That's great, Doc, but it doesn't answer my question.
It implies an answer.
No it doesn't.
Yes it does.
That's not an argument, that's just contradiction. Name one other way in which God emphasizes a point in His Word.
God doesn't leave such interpretations to mere mortals. Not for a second.
So how do we know?
Figures of speech.
Third base! Listen, Doc, is there any other way in anything you wrote that states how God emphasizes a point?
Figures of speech.
Anything else?
I didn't say only.
Okay, fine. Here's another question, Doc. If you have two verses, and one employs a figure of speech, and the other does not, how do you know which verse God wants emphasized?
The one that has a figure of speech is the one God wants emphasized.
Are you sure?
I'm mortal, aren't I?
Okay, so which is emphasized more in God's Word - "Take, Eat, this is my body" or "He is Risen?"
...
Once again, the use of the word "ONLY" is not central to my thesis, which plainly stated is as follows:
The presence of a figure of speech does not indicate that God is emphasizing the point being made over other points that do not contain a figure. This is true in all literature, and it is true in God's Word.
The presence of a figure of speech DOES indicate that the point being made is being emphasized over the alternative method of making the SAME POINT.
A literal statement (He is risen) is sometimes far more heavily emphasized than a figurative one ("lift up your head," Gen 40:13).
All it takes is ONE such example to prove Wierwille's statement wrong. I humbly submit that there is more than one such example in the Word of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Warning! a Grammar Police post!
"The order of the words in His Word are perfect" is not correct.
"The order is perfect" therefore "The order of the words in His Word is perfect" is correct.
Rafael, if you weren't a journalist, and Zix, if you weren't so pedantic, I wouldn't say anything. But in this case, I figured I shouldn't let youse guys get away with it.
Carry on.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Rafael: I resent the implication that your implication is more relevant than my implication.
-->
Steve: I stand corrected. Good catch.
:D-->
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I never implied that your implication was less important or less heavily emphasized than my implication. That implication was your implication, not mine.
Futhermore, yo mama!
Can we stop now?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Tsk, tsk, tsk... No, you may have inferred that, but nothing I said implied that!
Ha ha! Take THAT! [thrust, parry, riposte]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I apologize for inferring that you made an implication based on my implied inference.
This is so THE, you know that, don't you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
We now take a 5 minute intermission for a word from our sponser.
GO BUCS!!!!! ((insert RA-RA football muzak here))
And now we return to THE *Zix N' Raf* Figures of Speech Debate Championships.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Zix,
I mean you are really stretching here. Let me see.
1. "God is perfect; therefore, His Word is perfect.
2. Therefore the words in the Word are perfect, and
3. [therefore] the order of the words in the Word are perfect."
What kind of logic is this? #3 looks like a leap to me. Order is not that significant in Greek many times. The Greek language was developed by humans. How can God take a human invention and make it perfect? Maybe God invented Greek, huh ? ... Yea, like Gore invented the Internet.
Are you now saying that since VPW taught the logically flawed argument above that, he therefore did not imply that God *only* used figures for emphasis?
And this somehow proves that VPW was not in error about emphasis, I mean importance. What was it the we were discussing anyway - importance or emphasis - I forgot. Oh yea, emphasis - it implies importance . And "perfect order" also implies "importance of varying degree to the verses" like figures of speech?
And this somehow proves that Wierwille did not imply "only" when he taught about God's markings the Word with figures for emphasis? Give me a break! Zix, you are slipping. What would your logic professor say?
This has digressed to silliness - not to imply that anyone is silly.
;)-->
Wierwille was wrong dangit. I declare it by fiat.
:D-->
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Did he just call us silly?
Yo mama too!
Food fight!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Raf,
Is that an implicit food fight by implication?
Or is this the real deal?!?
:D-->
FFOOOODDD FFFIIIGGGHHHHTTT!!!!
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
Boys, boys...
I've stayed away from this intellectual discussion of all things Wierwillian just because, well just because...
But now you're just getting plain silly!
Hope R. color>size>face>
GO BUCS!!!size> color>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yawwwwn.
Even if I were to concede that point, which I don't, Wierwille is still in error for stating that figures of speech emphasize their points over other points in God's Word (or, in Wierwille's words, God would not leave it to a mere mortal to decide what's important in His Word - that's why He used figures of speech).
Look, I've said from the get-go that Wierwille's error is probably one of interpretation, not an "actual error." The fact that you disagree with me on this only proves that point. Can we PLEASE drop this now?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
thump...thump...thump...thump
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The horse moved! Shoot it! Shoot it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Zix, you did not address the point. I have no problem with # 1. Actually it is a given that the Word is perfect, the first part was unnecessary. The problem begins with # 2 and beyond. There is a leap from 1 to 2 and a giant leap from 2 to 3.
I was discussing the conclusion and how it was arrived at.
The final product, the Word, is perfect - given and agreed. But, the individual words alone need not be perfect in order to have a "Perfect Word" It is only when the words are combined to form the ideas and the concepts and the truths that God intended that we have "The Word" and perfection.
Question 1: Assuming that the words themselves are "perfect", if I take one of them out of the Word, is that word still perfect?
Question 2: Assuming the same, If I look at a individual word within the Word of God without looking at the words around it, ist that word still perfect ?
Question 3: If I rearrange the order of the words that make up a precept in the Word of God and the precept is still conveyed as before, have I made the Word of God imperfect ?
Human language is imperfect and the words that make up language are imperfect, yet in the case of the "Word", God used these imperfect words in an imperfect human language to convey his truths and precepts which are the Word. It is these truths and precept that are perfect.
Zix, Look at VPW's 1-2-3 logic construct above one more time. Seriously - put down that hot dog and try to be objective and apply your normal standards. Do you really see no problem in the logic there? Do you see a valid argument there?
I see no valid argument at all past the first given, which is rather typical of VPW. Where is the valid argument? ( I understand that conclusion based on an invalid argument *can* be true, as well as one with a false premise or even leaps).
Now let me get this musterd out of my eye.
Rafael, my mama ? Why them's fighting words!
(Goey heaves a big hunk of greasy pot roast at Rafael and runs out the door)
Goey
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
What kind of crack are you smoking there, guy? Here's the "get-go", in it's entirety:
And now, ladies and gentlemen, an all new Actual Error.
Great Henry Kissinger, man! You even bolded it!
You see why I can't have any sort of logical discussion with you? Cripes!
But just as a chicken will flap around grotesquely after its head has been severed, you continue to spout your clumsy, delusional flailings, oblivious to your ignominious defeat...
[Zixar loads the Creamed-Corn Cannon™...]
Puny journalist, you are now my bitch!
"The life of a superhero is a lonely one, filled with hardship and danger. The few who answer the call must leave comfort, safety, and, often, sanity behind. But someone's gotta stand the heat and stay in the kitchen. Someone's gotta don the oven mitts of all that's right, and strangle the red-hot throat of all that's wrong!"--The Tick makes his entrance
"Well, destiny honks the horn of gotta-go..."
"Awww, I stepped in GUM! Sticky pink devil! Who puts gum on a roof???"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Hmm. Let's see. Either I quote the part where I say "okay, maybe it's an error of interpretation..." or I block the creamed corn with large leaves of Romaine Lettuce and return fire with mashed potatoes.
And no, I'm not gonna forget the gravy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
An all-new potential let's discuss it and see if we agree actual error maybe.
I've really got to stop allowing Zix to write my intros.
Anyways, this comes from Mark Clarke in the doctrinal forum.
What say ye? Actual error? Or room for debate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Guess that one depends on if there's any wiggle room in the translation of those Hebrew prepositions.
Does this mean the food fight's over?
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
"I miss Jerry Barrax. Here's another Jerry Gem.
quote: VP insists Nathan was hesitant to reprove David because he was afraid David would have him beheaded. There is nothing in the Scripture to support such a claim.
Wow. It's true:"
Rafael, I don't have the words to say how touched I am to see this. I had thought the PFAL Review project was long forgotten. I still wish I had finished it or could get back to it even two years after its interruption, but I'm still immersed in work and family issues.
I don't visit the GS regularly. I was just passing by, so to speak and I find this.
Anyway, thanks so much for remembering.
Peace!
Jerry Barrax
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Barrax, I remember you.
I still haven't worked that business about the
"outer darkness" yet, but I have it pencilled
in for further study. If you've worked it in
detail, I'd love a copy.
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.