WordWolf

The Rocky Horror Picture Show Meat Loaf Aday Fight Club

I'd less this go, but it's the first time in a while I've gotten a song. This is Green Day's "BOULEVARD OF BROKEN DREAMS." Personally, I found it amusing that the video showed the singer walking with the band while he sang "I walk alone."

I really think that Rnr is more a matter of the golden parachutes and paychecks of a few twi higher-ups who realized twi was planning on leaving them high and dry. If they had been given a bigger slice of the pie, they would have stayed in twi longer yet. These were leaders who stayed when all the previous exoduses (exodi?) saw everyone with sense jump ship. Other than realizing they were getting older, there was no reason to finally leave.

Unless one goes beyond what vpw taught, one can't go beyond his insistence that one can't go beyond what one is taught!

If you really don't want to look more and more the fool, then you should stop patronizing everyone. We read you like a comic book. All this "this next part will blow your mind" stuff makes it look like your expectations are extremely low, especially compared to the rest of us here. Otherwise, go ahead, keep it up. No need to pretend you're not you.

I made my best guess, using a line from the song. I've heard the song before, but I don't know the title nor the artist. (And, apparently, I need to sit down and listen to more "Little Feat" if I ever get a chance.)

BTW, it's a little embarrassing that we've gone over David, Bath-shebah and Uriah as much as we have, and you STILL maintain the same errors over the accounts.

You were being cagey, and you really had nothing beyond THAT and were hiding THAT for a day and a half? We all knew this, whether some of us currently agree with it or not. That was all basic in twi, and some of it was basic Bible, which is why you don't have to go to ex-twi or twi to get any or all of that.

On top of that, he plagiarized the Amplified Bible when he posted "his" "literal translations according to usage." He claimed he'd "worked the Word" and came up with renderings that were word-for-word identical to the Amplified Bible. The most egregious example, IMO, was Philippians 4:13. vpw: "I am ready for anything and equal to anything through him who infuses inner strength into me." Word-for-word, that's in the 4:13 rendering in the Amplified Bible. Now, vpw would have you think it was a REMARKABLE COINCIDENCE that the phrasing was identical. However, nearly all of us see that as just ripping off their work and taking credit for it, aka "plagiarizing." Any of you who heard Acts 29's song with this as their chorus should remember it: "I am ready for anything and equal to anything through him who infuses inner strength into me. Yes, I am more than a conqueror, a real super-conqueror, and nothing will separate God's Love from me." If you go to Divinity School, specialize in preaching, and spend NO time on studying the Bible, you might be this much of a lightweight, also.

I've definitely heard this one before. But title and artist? How about "IN THE SUMMERTIME", by The Doors? Was I close? Did I get either right?

Hey, Human, since you got his song fair and square, why not post the next one as an example, so he can see what you meant? Properly, it's your turn.

vpw didn't use those versions, therefore Mike won't use them. The example of the NASB is particularly silly, because the one possible benefit of using the KJV or New KJV is the italics- and the NASB uses the italics. Moreover, since the vocabulary usage of the NASB is more standardized than that of the KJV (more often, if you see a word in English, it's translated from the same word in Greek/Hebrew as before), it's more useful when reading to understand the contents. I'm not sure if it was just complete ignorance of the NASB that led vpw to use the KJV only, but I suspect he preferred the 450-year old vocabulary of the KJV to that of a modern version like the NASB. With few fans of Elizabethan literature taking pfal (fans of Shakespeare, et al) vpw could more easily get away with mistakes based on the KJV and relying on its vocabulary even when what he said was factually incorrect. As a fan of Shakespeare, I'd found it irksome when people tortured the KJV English in twi, especially when a quick look at a concordance could expose the mistake. I think the one that bothered me most often was in the Intermediate class. When getting to Colossians 3:5 and the KJV said "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth", Earl said that the word "mortify" meant to "blow to smithereens." Ridiculous. As if Paul was referring to a mortar cannon which was invented millenia later. The KJV has a strong influence from the LATIN (like the Vulgate) because it draws from Tyndale's early efforts to go from Latin to English because that's the best he had. However, modern Bibles aren't hobbled the same way. Tyndale did good work with what he had, and the KJV was a fair accomplishment 450 years ago. So, what did "mortify" mean? Well, come on, anyone with a good vocabulary in English knows what a "mortician" is, and probably knows that "mortis" in Latin is "Death" "Mortify" meant "kill off". All of that would have been avoided by just checking a simple Greek-English Interlinear. That word "mortify" is the Greek word "necrosate." The root word is "NECROS." Again, if you have a decent vocabulary, you don't need to look up "necros" to know it means "death." It's used in many words in English. Doctors deal with necrotic tissue, Paul condemned necromancers in the Bible, etc. vpw made a number of ASSUMPTIONS based entirely on the KJV English, and taught them that way, even though a simple check of the Hebrew or Greek would have shown it was a mistake. In pfal, vpw spent MINUTES on the significance of the word "REPLENISH" in Genesis, when the Hebrew root word meant "FILL" and had NONE of the implications of "REPLENISH". If his doctrine was correct, it wasn't because the KJV used the word "replenish" as a poor translation from the Hebrew. (This has been discussed here, more than once, it's in lists of mistakes from pfal.) Don't be shocked if this is the only answer you get- or the answer is some vague HINTING there's a different answer that he never actually gives.

I think, every once in a while, it benefits the new people to see Mike. After all, they can see us, all having gotten on with our lives without vpw, twi, etc. Without Mike, there's no concrete example of what happens when you just put vpw and pfal in your brain and nothing else. Instead of being able to have an intelligent conversation with us about any of hundreds of topics, all Mike can do is his geek show- talk around things for pages and pages and claim he doesn't have time to post one clear paragraph, hint he knows something special but won't show anyone the special candy until they get in the van, etc. If nothing else, Mike's posts are very uplifting. After all, even the most wounded posters here can arrive, trying to understand how to rebuild their life in a healthy manner. Then they can see that their situation could be a lot worse- they could be forever doubling-down on the imaginary specialness of vpw, the imaginary specialness of pfal, the imaginary specialness of twi....... They've already come so far, and so, they can see they have indeed begun their recovery without having hit rock bottom. After all, rock bottom's here and posting!

Mike: "I suppose a lot of posters here would find the wording of the "HIDDEN Christ" just as repulsive as the absent Christ? I like them both." Rocky:"Why do you "suppose" anything about anyone? Why would you not simply pose the question, do any of the posters here find the expressions "HIDDEN Christ" or "absent Christ" repulsive, or otherwise believe they are inappropriate? If so, please explain the reason for your belief and/or feelings." WordWolf responds. It is only when Mike has IMAGINARY discussions on an IMAGINARY GSC that he actually gets to make points he likes. When he posts his faulty ideas on the real GSC, they get refuted. However, in his mind, he rewrites the discussions so that he "wins" all the time and refutes even the most unassailable logic. I mean, in his mind he rewrites twi materials, and in his mind he rewrites the discussions here. It's all of a piece. Otherwise, yes, he would actually DISCUSS. When we asked questions, he would ANSWER. Instead, it's post after post of OBFUSCATION, never getting to a point. Besides, if Mike ever actually POSTED his points, the readers could see that they were built on cotton candy. As long as he hides everything, and PRETENDS he's got something, someone (Mike, if nobody else) can imagine he's actually got SOMETHING.

Don't get your hopes up that Mike will speak plainly. If he did, you'd see his "special hidden" doctrines are not special at all. They're either constructed of suppositions, or plainly obvious and hardly unique to Mike. But as long as he play coy and never actually get anywhere, he can at least tell HIMSELF he's got something.

Correct! Aka "Triple -D". And yes, the earlier host was Bobby Flay.

Is it worth watching? I only remember it from the full-page ads on the back cover of comic books.

How about A SPACE TRAVESTY? (Something like 2050 A Space Travesty?) Leslie Nielsen in another starring role in a spoof.

It reminded me of a Johnny Cash song, but it's definitely not that song.

I liked Richard Griffiths in "King Ralph", also. Ok, this one, since we're past 3 days and I can look it up, I'm doing one link I haven't done before..... Max Von Sydow Flash Gordon Richard O'Brien (He's actually really well-known, in some circles, for one very specific movie he acted in (I think he also directed it.)

How about "Buckaroo Banzai and His Adventures Across the 8th Dimension"? (Buckaroo WHO?)

Name ANY to take the round. A) Guy Fieri invites the best of the best chefs in a single-elimination, winner-takes-all contest, each going one-on-one with another chef until one is left. Different challenges will affect each round. Two neutral food experts interview the chef during the cooking process, and describe the dish to the judging panel to ensure the panel has no idea who cooked what, preventing them from favoritism. B) 3-4 chefs are called into a parking lot set up as a kitchen. They have to get ingredients by stopping real customers leaving a food store and buy individual ingredients or the entire contents of their cart, sight unseen. They have to cook a successful dish in the provided time- and the time getting ingredients is part of that time! So, waiting for perfect ingredients can eat up all your cooking time (or get expensive in the early rounds when you can buy entire carts sight unseen.) C) The host of the show mentioned in B), now challenges chefs from all over the US to try to out-cook her, 3 at a time. D) The show sets up a kitchen in the middle of a suburban street, with houses on both sides. Contestants must pick a house, and get their ingredients from what the residents have on hand (yes, they're paid for all the stuff.) E) 3 chefs divide the pool of chefs into 3 teams for the season, each of them leading their team. Each episode, the chefs have to cook a dish that fits a description. Each episode, each team picks randomly, and ends up cooking in one of 3 kitchens. The top floor has high-tech, fancy appliances, the middle floor has regular restaurant kitchen appliances, and the bottom floor has appliances like a home cook. The ingredients for use come down and stop for TEN SECONDS for chefs to get ingredients- stopping at the top floor first, then the middle, then the bottom chefs get whatever is left. When it is time to plate, the moving platform stops first at the bottom floor, then the middle, then the top, again for TEN SECONDS. This show involves trying to find a chef of surpassing skill and potential. F) So you don't like shows about cooking food? How about cooking metal? This show (with at least one overseas version) has 4 weaponsmiths compete in their knife-making skills on-site, then the last 2 competitors go back to their home forges, and have a few days to produce a copy of a famous weapon. Their weapons are examined, and tested with violence, and a winner is chosen from the blades that survive the tests. One less dramatic test is the apple slice- comparing a line of apples to see which are sliced cleanly and which are split. One more dramatic test is the "bulletproof sword club." The resulting sword is set up, blade forward, and a single bullet is fired- resulting either in a split bullet or a shattered blade as the bladesmith enters the "Oh, my God, they shot my sword with a gun" club instead of the "bulletproof sword club." Viewers can learn all sorts of things about weapon- making, metal-forging, and related skills, as a panel of judges comments on the techniques as they're being used. One blade was disqualified because it was completely shaped by use of grinders and sanders, and not even a little by the process named in the show's title. G) Guy Fieri drives all over the place, to eat at little, local eateries with specialties, and publicizes them. H) Before Alex Guarnachelli (however it's spelled) tried it, a different chef brought in 2 chefs, then had them compete against each other for the right to challenge him one-on-one in cooking a dish of their choice. I) 2 chefs, Anne Burrell and a guest chef, attempt to teach a handful of people who are hopeless in the kitchen. The last 2 contestants make a full restaurant meal, with the better meal winning them a pile of cash.

Given how odd this sounds, if it's not some sort of adult movie, I'm going to guess "AMAZON WOMEN ON THE MOON."

The Aramaic interlinear that twi published showed the changed position- it was written as a question. Lamsa was never the expert in Palestinian Aramaic of the first century as he would hold forth- so his claim that this "would never" have been written as a question was without merit. As a rhetorical question, it carries the same meaning Lamsa wanted to claim- and accurately reflects the text. Other than that book showing the correct translation, I'm unaware of twi actually correcting anything, and I don't know what they say if someone asks. I DO know they tend to get very defensive if asked about things where someone has to admit even a small mistake, so I think the official policy is still "launch a personal attack on anyone who asks about this, and get evasive as to the actual answer." That's the experience most people got when asking about obvious errors, whether corrected or otherwise.