WordWolf

Considering his free use of coarse words, it's obvious he learned quite a bit under lcm.

It is. It is not, but since that leaves 1 film, it's your turn. BTW, Wednesday and Pugsley's presentation seems to have the dialogue composed entirely of Shakespearean quotes. "A hit! A very palpable hit!" is from Hamlet's last scene. Hamlet swears to stop contemplating and turn his thoughts bloody-to revenge- about 1/2 way through the story.

A) Did I miss something? The constructs were conclusively shown to actually have a structure of sentences and paragraphs? B) "as opposed to just uttering gibberish" doesn't follow from "it was organized into sentences and paragraphs." Gibberish can be organized into sentences and paragraphs, and we're trying not to use the word "gibberish" because it's a loaded term with pejorative connotations. So, I'm unsure what YOU mean by it. (Another reason to avoid it-usage is INCONSISTENT.)

Hannibal Gary Oldman The Professional

Definitely not. "'How all occasions do inform against me and spur my dull revenge. O, from this time forth, my thoughts be bloody or nothing worth. If I must strike you dead, I will.'" "'A hit! A very palpable hit!'" "'O, Proud Death. What feast is toward in thine eternal cell? Sweet Oblivion, open your arms!'" " I would die for her. I would kill for her. Either way, what bliss!" "They say a man who represents himself has a fool for a client. Well, with God as my witness, I am that fool!" "Last night you were unhinged. You were like some desperate, howling demon. You frightened me. Do it again!"

We can't dictate the speed with which someone recovers from twi or anything else. Other posters have had worse trouble with this, for different reasons. We've shown them a little understanding and pathos. GENTLEMEN, I trust we can all behave ourselves WITHOUT any moderator needing to say anything.

I agree with this statement. Not at all. However, it would not surprise me if one of the phrases there was originally FROM "Othello" and used in this movie.

"'How all occasions do inform against me and spur my dull revenge. O, from this time forth, my thoughts be bloody or nothing worth. If I must strike you dead, I will.'" "'A hit! A very palpable hit!'" "'O, Proud Death. What feast is toward in thine eternal cell? Sweet Oblivion, open your arms!'"

Larry Abbott Eugene Grizzard Dr Doug Ross

Should tell them you're being sneaky. This was "The DeadPool," combining "DeadPool" (now in theaters) with "the Dead Pool", a Dirty Harry movie.

I saw neither the movie nor television series of "THE DEAD ZONE."

Try not to confuse "disagreeing" with "negative posts" with "personal attacks." Personal attacks overstep the discussion of the subject, and get into a meta-discussion about the other posters. Disagreeing is a natural consequence of discussion. If you're supposedly answering a question, and your reply doesn't address the question, other people may point that out-which is not necessarily negative. "I don't see how this follows logically." -Either it doesn't, or your communication was not sufficient to show that person how it IS logical. (It's possible, but less common, for the person to be impenetrable to logic, but that wasn't the case here.) So, lay it out again, clearer. This should result in one of 3 things, each of which have happened here, at different times: A) the logic is shown to be flawed B) the logic is demonstrated to be sound and is easier to understand C) the asker is demonstrated to be wasting everyone's time That last one was the hallmark of a few posters. My comment was "negative" but was no "attack" on you. Your phrasing was slanted- and, apparently, you didn't notice it. It was a loaded question, and I showed one equally loaded, just as unfair, and representing a different position. It isn't "negative if it disagrees with me and positive if it disagrees with someone else." I made a rather fundamental comment about the Greek and an obvious error in the same post. I don't think you INTENTIONALLY skipped over them, but you didn't address them, either. Considering the context- you sounding like something was obvious and unquestionable, yet missing something basic that was a basis for questioning it all by itself- I thought it was at least worth noting. One goal is "disagreeing without being disagreeable." If we got personal, I'm sure Raf and I could really insult and verbally abuse each other here-but we agree not to even if we agree on nothing else. There's ways to really disagree without making them personal. (Reminds me, Raf. I'll get back to Genesis 3 when the weather stays cool if I can manage enough time to sleep in between posts.) BTW, was Raf correct in his summary of your position?

IF you're correct about what he's saying, then my disagreements with him as to substance are COSMETIC, and my only disagreements with him would be about "style." But I'm not sure you're correct about what he's saying.

Actually, since you posted those verses in a SLANTED way, one could just as easily ask the EQUALLY LOADED question (it wasn't nice of you to ask the question the way you did) "Do you DELIBERATELY hide information that doesn't suit you?" All pfal grads SHOULD be able to remember something interesting about that verse. You didn't use the NASB. I just checked the Nestle-and the Greek agrees with it. The word "them" in the NIV is NOT IN THE GREEK-it was ADDED BY THE TRANSLATOR. It is VOID OF AUTHORITY. It is the translator's BEST GUESS as to what belonged in the sentence- and often we find the translator's skill WANTING. I Corinthians 14:2 NASB For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. The Greek seems consistent with a read that no "one who speaks in a tongue" UNDERSTANDS while he speaks mysteries. As for the more florid examples of English versions, well, they're nice, but all based on the opinion and not unquestionably a reflection of the Greek on which they were allegedly based. Personal attacks and appeals to OPINION are beneath the declared purposes of these threads.

" It was all designed so that if you accepted vic's definitions of the "gift ministries", you would "figure out" that vic made the definitions in a manner where all definitions pointed to vic as a current, biblically defined apostle, prophet and teacher. He never claimed to be an evangelist or pastor, but he sure made it appear as if he had the big three as listed in Corinthians. So if you accepted vic's definitions then you would reflexively accept that vic had at least the big three, and some thought all 5!" He may never have OFFICIALLY claimed to be an evangelist or pastor, but he sure HINTED about them shamelessly and, as you said, he redefined all 5 to make it sound like he fit ALL the definitions. Ever see a group say an Evangelist's primary function was NOT to "evangelize", but to GET OTHER PEOPLE TO EVANGELIZE? Only vpw was that shameless. He said that Evangelists had the duty to get others emotionally hot enough so that THEY evangelized. (Then the evangelist could stay at HQ and enjoy all the comforts.) My, how CONVENIENT. And how odd that the very word that defines the function supposedly doesn't apply at all to the function!

Are you saying that- ACCORDING TO STRONG'S- it might be equally accurate to render the same Greek expression either "forever and ever" OR "to the ages of the ages"? Last time I worked on it, I rendered it the latter, since it seems the most direct translation.

I know this comes as a shock to people at times, but this "phenomena" thing was an invention, probably of vpw's, and there is no BIBLICAL definition of it. Number of occurrences of the words phenomenon/phenomena in the KJV is ZERO, in the NIV is ZERO, in the RSV is ZERO. Since the words is NONEXISTENT in the Bible, it is not a word that has a BIBLICAL definition. What kind of definition can it have? It can be defined by its use. Back in 1989, when I was in a room with several people, someone claimed that phenomena were not guaranteed. I pointed out that WE LABEL something a phenomena when we are surprised by the results, that we did not consider this the expected result. I silenced the room for an instant, then someone IMMEDIATELY gave the knee-jerk reaction that we can't say that. Someone else quickly disagreed-but still didn't explain what it seemed the entire room was missing. It's perfectly acceptable to make up a word or a phrase to explain something new. We DO, however, need to be aware of what we do when we do it, and be aware that our IMPOSED labels are not CANON and are not AUTHORITATIVE. I bring all of that up now to bring up what may or may not be obvious- that calling something "phenomena", in and of itself, is a label, and a label without authority or a universal definition. "As we saw in Acts 2, sometimes people can understand what is being spoken in tongues, but this is rare and could be considered miraculous." That's 2 statements, neither supported by the verses themselves. If there's a rationale for either statement, it was not presented. "This is rare" "This could be considered miraculous". Mind you, all supernatural activity "could be considered miraculous." I believe what was MEANT here-correct me if it was NOT meant- was that "this could be considered unique." If the first occurrence of something is supposed to set the standard by which it is understood, then THE OPPOSITE is demonstrated. "Speaking in tongues is speaking to God a hidden or secret thing as inspired by the Holy Spirit." And yet, that's on the "God-end" of things, and the DEMONSTRATED end, certainly at Pentecost, was that the speakers spoke in languages they didn't understand but many observers did-and they explained the speech was of "the wonderful works of God." "The fact that these people of different nations heard the 12 apostles speak in their own native individual languages is phenomenon," I think we all agree that the people of the different nations heard the 12 apostles speak in their own native individual languages. The "it's a phenomenon" label, supposing it carries an actual meaning of "there's no guarantees of this", is a CLAIM and was not supported. "and a reverse effect of that which occurred at the Tower of Babel when God confounded the languages. See Genesis chapter 11, verses 1-9." It looks similar, but there are important differences. We can discuss them if you wish. "That everyone understood in their own different language in Acts chapter 2 does not normally happen, but apparently this phenomenon was a sign of the importance and significance of the receiving of the Holy Spirit as promised by God." Again, that it "does not normally happen" is a claim. "Apparently" means the claim is being explained when it wasn't ever SUPPORTED. I saw this when people explained the significance of the cross Jesus was crucified on as being the "lowercase t" shape. Nice explanation, not factual, and not supported. "If someone speaks in tongues or speaks in tongues with interpretation, it is possible for someone to know the language or tongue if it is a language of men that they know." I would agree. If the listener understood the language of either the "tongue" or the interpretation, they would be able to follow it. Mind you, I think this claim ruffles feathers. "However, the person speaking in tongues according to the scriptures will not know the language otherwise it wouldn’t be a tongue described as a mystery or divine secret to the speaker." I think that this is uncontested, and we all agree. Providing what is done is actual tongues (that's a "given" for that statement.) When vpw supposedly spoke Greek when told to "speak in tongues", he was intentionally faking it, so he knew what he was saying. (Presuming this was a true story he recounted.)

*lightbulb* We're talking Kim Jong Il, and something something "World Police." Looked like the South Park inventors did a marionette movie, or something.

We never found out if they spoke English in "What". "Pulp Fiction."

I'm getting that the most likely meaning is that Nathaniel concluded Jesus saw him by revelation one way or another, and responded with that in mind. I mean, just plain good eyesight is nice but not miraculous. Another thing I was thinking about was a possible paucity of signs. Under the Roman occupation, the remaining prophets and so on may have stayed alive by keeping a lower, less-controversial profile. The Romans didn't pry, so if they didn't draw attention to themselves, they could survive under Roman rule. (Then came John and Jesus and all that went out the window.)

A was definitely "Cash Cab" in either version (NYC, Chicago.) B was "Repo Games." If your car was up for repo, they would show up, grab the car, then tell you that you had the chance to play. They ask 5 questions. Answer 3 correctly out of 5 (or less than 5 if you answer well and get the first few right), and they put the car down, pay off the past-due, and pay off the entire remainder- you now own the car free and clear. If you miss 3, or refuse to play, they just drive off with the car. C was definitely "Let's Make a Deal" with any of the hosts. Your turn.

Actually, I remember how lcm's own biography showed how lcm went from college student directly to twi full-timer, with no pause for life outside either academia (where he was proud to be just a jock) or twi's grounds. He went from being IN the corps to RUNNING the corps in one step, with no practice or experience in between. As for Johnny R here, he went from being in the Corps directly to being put in charge of the wow program (before it was dismantled), then he was put directly into the cabinet. He was neither a "Limb" coordinator nor a "Region" coordinator, although he was a Branch coordinator during his interim Corps year. Just felt that needed to be added.

It's game show time. Identify any game show to take the round. A) Got in a taxi and suddenly became the contestant on a trivia quiz game-show? I know what show you're on..... B) Fell behind on your car payments, and you now have a chance to play for your car to be paid off rather than taken away? I know what show you're on... C) You're in a studio audience, wearing a gorilla costume. If you have a deck of cards, the host will suddenly pay you cash for it. There's only one show you could be on....

Wow. So, killing Saddam Hussein twice in "Hot Shots" and "Hot Shots Part Deux" didn't count as assassination attempts? They dropped a bomb in his lap, and a house on him.

Let's keep this thread as free of Doctrinal overlap as we can. We can easily say " A trained linguist could do this, using the principles of morphology and syntax, without any knowledge of the specific language. So, if a trained linguist is exposed to an actual language of any kind -verbal, vocal recordings of any actual language- they have the tools and training to diagram it." We can also say "A linguist would be able to construct a format (similar to diagramming sentences) for any language, whether or not he knew anything about it- if, indeed, it represented a viable language. An inability to do so (providing one didn't set him up to fail by giving him 2 seconds of a language, say) would indicate it lacked the structures that verbal, vocal languages possess by virtue of being verbal, vocal languages." (I am so specific because I'm aware that it's possible that less-honest posters could isolate a single sentence, then find something that it didn't apply to and was never suggested to, then claim the sentence was false rather than misapplied.)