WordWolf

We're agreeing with Paul. We'd also like to find real examples of what Paul spoke about- if any currently exist. We're not arguing with Paul, we're agreeing with him- and claiming the modern practice has been LABELLED the same thing but is not. I myself was hoping for some evidence to the contrary, but none has appeared that can actually sway me logically. (Would be nice, though.) But if you disagree, hey, cool. Jesus will settle all differences at the appointed time. Unless the Scriptures actually show that what Paul did is NOTHING like the modern practice we were all indoctrinated into in twi. Then those who still do it are sincerely mistaken and MEAN to pray and praise to God, but are doing something other than Biblical SIT at the time. Feel free to do a slow, good job and not feel rushed. We all have things to do.

It's not intentional, it's a side-effect. I'm trying to make a coherent story, and that seems to generally reverse the title orders. (I managed to reverse it with a description change once, as you recall, I'm sure.)

Tommy Lee Jones and Meryl Streep as a couple who, decades into their marriage, try to spark things up all over again. I didn't remember the name partly because I heard more than 1 name for it, and partly because it shares a name with more than 1 other movie. It was released as "Hope Springs" in the US. (What Am I Going To Do With My Husband? was another title.)

That's it.

If I can name the male lead actor and the rough plot, can we move along?

*cough* RHODES Scholar *cough* http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/rhodes-scholar.html

A mad scientist turns out to have survived his supposed death. He agrees to help construct an artificial woman- who is then kidnapped and a kingdom framed for her kidnapping. Good thing her intended mate-a man in black who was previously constructed- arrives to thwart the 3 kidnappers. Then things really get complicated...

Well, it's something new to discuss and consider, at least. People exhibit crazy behaviour all the time. Many attribute it to religion- or write their religion around crazy behaviour. There were devout people in the Appalachias who handled snakes and sipped poison as part of their religious practices- and some still do. Lots of people know that, and lots have looked into it. Very few people signed on. There were sincere people who thought the Hale-Bopp comet was the signal a spaceship was going to pick them up. Their leader called himself "Do" (Japanese for "way", like in TaeKwonDO or AikiDO, which made me suspicious he was claiming he was some sort of Messiah, the way, truth and life.) Out of all the people they tried to recruit, relatively few signed up. That means relatively few committed suicide, expecting their spirits or souls or whatever to be beamed up to the mother ship or whatever. Manson claimed to be the Messiah, too, as did Jim Jones. People killed for them or committed suicide for them- but most people would have just walked or ran the other direction. Not everybody who got into twi would have been ripe for "throw yourself on the floor" Christianity. I certainly would have run the other way- even further from Christianity than I was. I needed a SENSIBLE approach, one that showed there was a LOGIC to Christianity that I'd never heard of before. (Other people had seen it, I had not, not that I had a wide range of experience.) Many others would have ignored it, too. My family for sure, and nearly everyone I ever invited to a Bible fellowship. At least a FEW people might have gone for it, though. SOMEBODY's doing the "smack in the head" and stuff.

He did. This thread's gone on for as long as it has partly because it's gone in circles. Raf posted something, and you disagreed. He explained, and you claimed to not get it. Any study was skipped over and parsed for things to jump on, not legitimate points to discuss. (If someone spent several paragraphs on a point, then made one sentence that was obvious in context but sounded like it went in the opposite direction, you jumped all over the sentence.) Just going from his posts, I'd say he's tired of repeating himself. Raf's claimed to have addressed everything (I'd add more than once.) You're claiming he hasn't addressed major points. Both of you are going to keep saying that. Both of you are going to keep meaning that. By definition, at least one of you is wrong. I'd have liked it to have been Raf. Yes, I've known him a long time- but the double-edged sword is that I hold him to a higher standard than I hold you. So, if he leaves matters unspoken, I'm more likely to call him on it, and would at least bring it up when asked. You asked now- he addressed everything. He's under no compulsion to keep on re-addressing it. You're also in error that HIS comments are "snide" or "namecalling." If you thought he was being rude, you could easily have complained. If I thought he was, I WOULD have complained. Earlier, I thought his tone was harsh, although I wouldn't say he was "namecalling." I mentioned it to him. Later, he was (as I perceive it) less harsh, so I dropped it. Later, I noted you were pushing things, while he was going out of his way NOT to. And I said so. I posted about it and let it go at that. Adults should be able to police themselves when they are asked. (I can be moderated effectively by simply being ASKED to be nicer and being reasoned with. That's why I don't get kicked out of places, and keep being offered moderation or staff positions on boards nearly everywhere I go.)

That's not what it said on his business cards....

Ok, I think cman accidentally made a critical point that keeps getting lost in the shuffle. Remember how we studied "faith" vs "believing" and the critical differences in twi? And then how we discussed them at the GSC, and-no surprise!- with both being the same Greek word, the same concept is both words in English, and the differences were added by the doctrines and minds of people in English? "Well, if it was the same thing, it would be called the same thing." Right- it was called the same thing until translators to English took the same word and gave it multiple meanings, either justifying an existing doctrine or accidentally inventing a new doctrine. (I ran into a similar problem with 3 different KJV English words for 1 Greek word, where 2 of the words had denotations the first one did not. So, meanings were added by translators.) Well, we have "tongues" and we have "languages." In Greek, that's the same Greek word. The most sensible thing to do is to begin with one word in Greek being consistently translated as ONE word in English. In this case, we could go with "tongues" in both instances, but that would then make the term less common and more open to muddying the meanings. So, the obvious approach would be: translate it "language" each time. So, we'd end up with "If you understood languages, it's not languages any more. Of course it's a frigging language." We're discussing "speaking in languages."

Correct!

I've got a Golden Ticket!"

Unless, of course, my point stands. I'm curious. I'm going to post it again. Other than chockfull, can everyone else SEE my point? I'm not asking if you AGREE- just if you SEE it. You can see it and strongly disagree, of course. I just want to confirm my communication is effective. ===================== Here's the KJV of the verse. I Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. The phrase that's critical to chockfull's claim is "for no man understandeth him." The problem with this is that a cursory check of a Greek Interlinear will show the last word of the phrase was completely added. It should be in italics. That's why the NASB doesn't add the word. Here's the NASB of the verse. I Corinthians 14:2 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. Does adding the word change the meaning? It might. If the meaning of the phrase is "One speaks in a tongue and nobody who hears him can understand the tongue", then the meaning is retained. Of course, if that meaning is retained, we have a rather obvious problem that now we have personal anecdotes we're supposed to believe that directly contradict Scripture- where someone spoke in a tongue and someone or some people understood. However, AND THIS IS MY POINT, if the meaning of the phrase is "One speaks in a tongue and can't understand the tongue" and that has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else, then a translator added a word and completely changed the meaning. 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. One speaking in a tongue, inasmuch as it's to God and not men, cannot possibly understand what he himself is speaking-it's to God. However, it is mysteries in his spirit and directed to God. That's one way of looking at it. And it conflicts with personal theology of some, but doesn't produce a conflict with any instance in Scripture, nor does it conflict with personal anecdotes related so far, whether or not they happened exactly as believed. So, everyone else, whether or not you agree with me, can you see what I'm saying and how someone can get there, whether or not it's where you'd go?

In some places, this movie just left the theaters. With most people not having seen it on basic cable, and possibly not premium cable or DVD, few people have heard of it. I know which movie it is, but I don't know the name, myself.

Now, now, GENTLEMEN, please police yourselves and go take a brisk walk or something. You're both adults.

Could be "free" as in "speech" or as in "beer." In other news, this movie is, obviously for us, The Princess Bride.

You keep using that word. I don't thin' it means what you thin' it means.

Read it again, slower, without emotion. This isn't a matter of DISAGREEING with me, this is a matter of actually understanding what I wrote. Wait till you get what I wrote, THEN disagree with me. In the second case, we have one guy speaking, and one guy not understanding. Others aren't even mentioned. Again, you don't have to agree with me to understand my position. (Would be nice if you did, though- I began in this thread looking for someone to present a good reason to think Raf was in error in forming his position, and I would have been happy to have found one in your posts. I WANT your position to be correct. You keep missing that. (That or you're convinced I'm lying about it.)

So, you're comfortable living down to society's standards? Christian compassion calls us to do better that. Do you only do the right thing when everyone else does it, and only skip doing the wrong thing when consequences are invoked? How about being nice for its own sake? There's heathens and publicans who do that. And think about what it means to actually "hate." Nobody's coming at you with "hate." Nobody's screaming, spewing insults, and blowing things off because they're coming from you. Nobody's throwing out racial epithets or any other form of objectionable language- "hate speech." People are DISAGREEING with you. If you can't see that, you're putting WAY too much emotion into this, and need to stop reading "hate" into things. And apparently Raf is picking here and now to draw a line. It could have been any objectionable phrase, but this is the one you're using. Please confine comments to the other person's POV, not the other person. Any person can make a foolish statement- Steven Hawking and Albert Einstein included. (Well, when Einstein was alive.) However, that doesn't mean every person is a fool. There's a big difference with commenting on others and objecting to their posts or positions, and objecting to them.

If you spend a little less energy on the bombastic language and style (less sizzle) you might catch more information on the thread (more steak.) Either phrase does NOT mean the same thing, any more than "two of them on either side" and "two of them, on either side one" means the same thing. Raf already mentioned the answer, and for the sake of discussion, took the opposite position. I didn't have to enlighten him, he got what I said from one read, and I'd bet others did too. However, for you and any others who either skipped over it or just didn't get it, I'll answer. Here it is in the NASB. "2 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." Can be taken to mean 2 things, depending on the context. A) Nobody understands the man when he's speaking, he's speaking mysteries to God. B) Nobody speaking in tongues understands it- he's speaking mysteries. Then it's up to the rest of the verses and the rest of the Bible to show which of those grammatically-correct interpretations reflects what the verse is meant to convey. We had a similar problem when vpw built up an entire verse into a doctrine saying abortion was cool with God. It was centered entirely around one verse where the word "hagios" was translated "holy thing" and not "holy one" as it was translated everywhere else. The same chapter put the lie to it, showing the opposite of vpw's doctrine, which is why it's vitally important to read ALL the verses and not just isolate one verse, or even one chapter or one book. The whole conveys meanings, and it's easy to misunderstand a part in the search to understand the whole. I've done that in the past without meaning to. I'm confident I'm still doing it and hope to understand better in the future. But if I trust wholly in my understanding, I'll stagnate and stew in my own error. If I'd wanted to do that, I would have skipped becoming a Christian.

Actually, part of the problem is "trusting the KJV" and part of the problem is "not looking it up in a common interlinear." I've known this since the freaking 80s. The word "him" in the KJV in I Corinthians 14:2, the one your theology seems to be depending critically on, supposedly is translated from the Stephens Text. (The entire KJV is supposed to be translated from the Stephens Text.) Any Bible student with access to a US Barnes and Noble or the like, or a Christian bookstore, can buy a Greek-English Interlinear. The Gordon Ricker-Berry one (published by Zondervan) is entirely from the Stephens Text. It's what I did all my early studies with. Any Bible student should be able to look up I Corinthians 14:2 in it, look at the English word "him" in the verse, and see there is no corresponding English word. In other words, the KJV forgot to put it in italics. So, "him" completely changed the meaning of the verse, and was added by translators. I don't put my trust in the theology of the translators. Supposedly, you don't either. You might want to correct that. It's one of the reasons the NASB is a better study Bible. It has the italics, and doesn't make many of the same mistakes. The same verse in the NASB doesn't have "him" added to it. You're welcome. Actually, it's about translators adding to Scripture, and someone making up the whole argument from what the translators added. Focusing on one word that wasn't in the verse until translators added, and blowing it up out of proportion. I trust Scripture. I use logic. I don't trust the translators any farther than I have to-they make mistakes, they add things. (Mind you, even the worst-handled Bible, as the American Bible Society has pointed out, still clearly lays out God's Plan of Salvation. I keep trying to get as close to perfection as I can manage.) I don't need to be convinced to check the work of the translators. As anyone can see, they make mistakes. Go on, pull your Interlinear down off the shelf. You probably still have one, and either use it regularly or can dust it off and use it. If, after all this, you still insist on basing your theology on additions to the KJV, that's not my problem.

Jaws, besides the shark, was the name of a tall Bond villain. I doubt this is correct. "For Your Eyes Only"?

Star Wars Episode I: the Phantom Menace II Society.

That's it.