WordWolf

Joe Versus the Volcano Abe Vigoda Cannonball Run 2

"Why waste those cute little tricks that the Army taught us just because it's sort-of peaceful now?" "Hello. This is a recording. You've dialed the right number, now hang up and don't do it again. " "I'm so drunk, I don't think I could lie down without holding on!" " I can't do it. I've got my wife to think of." "Think of her rich." "Think of me dead." "You'll miss my wedding!" "Mother, I have never missed one of your weddings. "Yes, you did. My first one." "Going down." "Going down." "Where they serve the drinks." "To the bar." "Oh, Danny. What a prize you are. The only husband in the world who'd proposition his own wife."

I know someone else who's going to be disappointed they didn't log in before me. They're a fan of both. This is "the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Quest." BTW, the BBC TV version of books 1 & 2 was MUCH better than the big screen version of 1, and was done on a short budget. The only thing the new one had on it was Alan Rickman's voice for Marvin.

"Why waste those cute little tricks that the Army taught us just because it's sort-of peaceful now?" "Hello. This is a recording. You've dialed the right number, now hang up and don't do it again. " "I'm so drunk, I don't think I could lie down without holding on!" " I can't do it. I've got my wife to think of." "Think of her rich." "Think of me dead."

"Why waste those cute little tricks that the Army taught us just because it's sort-of peaceful now?" "Hello. This is a recording. You've dialed the right number, now hang up and don't do it again. "

Hm. Good question. I think I would have gone for it, and I think some other people would have, sooner or later. Having been trained to fake it, it's tough to say with any surety I ever did it for real, and at least SIT would be tough to really say it with evidence and confidence. I think the case would have to go for "prophecy" or "interpretation."

That first quote is the opening lines from "the Cannonball Run", said over the police-band between Dispatch and a car in pursuit.

I'm not sure where it fits in. On the one hand, I can freely say that I never MEANT to fake it in twi, but I did because the people around me did. On the other hand, I'm convinced that at least SOME of the messages that came via "prophecy" or whatever were legit- largely ones that were radically different from the stock "messages" we got every week. At least once I was planning for one thing, got the opposite, and was visibly puzzled as to what happened. (It made sense a few minutes later, but at the time I was genuinely surprised.)

Hey- we're family. You wouldn't think that was a sentimental comment if you'd met my family. ;)

Before going off on a 12-session class for 200/100/85/50/40 dollars or something, try the most obvious meaning of the passage. It has always read the same to me regardless of version. Even in the KJV I read it the same way. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 New International Version (NIV) 4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 Contemporary English Version (CEV) 4 Even though food is offered to idols, we know that none of the idols in this world are alive. After all, there is only one God. 5 Many things in heaven and on earth are called gods and lords, but none of them really are gods or lords. 6 We have only one God, and he is the Father. He created everything, and we live for him. Jesus Christ is our only Lord. Everything was made by him, and by him life was given to us. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 King James Version (KJV) 4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Some people make an idol or a "god" of their job, or their patriotism, or their family, or their political affiliation, or any of hundreds of other things. Those things they make more important and schedule their lives around, those are often their "lords". There's "gods" and "lords" of every type. Ever see someone live for fantasy football or for sex? You know what their "god" or their "lord" is. Many gods? Yes- money, power, sex, fame, drugs.... Many supernatural beings existing and desiring worship? Not what this is saying at all. Back in high school, one guy I knew said that, if vampires were driven off by objects of worship, most people would have to hold up a dollar bill to ward one off. (And he was an atheist-he didn't think there was anything supernatural about a dollar bill.) Be careful. When the possibilities are "the obvious meaning" and "an occulted, hidden, secret, special meaning", go with the obvious meaning. Do not order 2 dozen ritual robes. Do not make a new class. Do not make a new organization.

PotC:Curse of the Black Pearl Johnny Depp Sleepy Hollow Hm. Johnny Depp wasn't in Tim Burton's Batman film. I bet he was working on something else at the time.

A "Monroe" and a comic strip artist/writer/stripper says "Too Close To Comfort" for me, but the decade is wrong.

OldSkool beat me to it. Time constraints have partly limited my discussion in this thread. If it didn't, however, I would find myself reluctant to be on the same side as you for conduct reasons if nothing else. If I didn't know better, I'd say it wasn't the same Raf on this thread that I've known- he was a nice guy and the one on this thread's been more concerned with scoring points than remembering that everyone who's discussing this with him is deserving of equal respect. I don't know if it's this subject that has you feeling so riled (i.e. crusading against all opposing POVs) or if something horrible happened offline and you're venting it on this subject. However, I wouldn't be proud of having posted with the level of "bite" you've been exhibiting on this thread.

For discussions here, I'll cut and paste in the KJV, because it's here. For looking things up, I use the KJV and then check another version-I can look things up faster that way. For my own use, I use the NASB and recommend it around. It has the italics, clear, modern language, attempts to translate consistently (word A is rendered word 1 each usage), and lots of work went into it so it's a lot more accurate to the texts than the KJV. (I pursue a sort of Zeno's Paradox of accuracy.) It also translates word for word, which suits me best. I first heard of it from other ex-twiérs, but reading Neil Lightfoot's "How We Got the Bible" impressed me about it. Then I went and started using it. Interestingly, Lightfoot never said it was his favorite there, but it sounded a LOT better than the NKJV and the NIV to hear him describe each. I've also used the NIV and Contemporary English Version to make comparisons. Mind you, I like Shakespeare so I can follow the KJV just fine, but I think 500 years had meant many other versions exceed it in quality.

Then I think it is PECULIAR that any modern Bible had that. I've owned and bought/given away a number of KJV (back in my twi days), and none of them included that. I won't claim yours doesn't- you're looking at it now and I'm not, so I'll accept it's there. That's peculiar, but it is certainly possible. I will agree that it has no point nowadays. I appreciate what King James did- he set up the team, he paid for the work, and it was ground-breaking 500 years ago- but I won't go beyond that.

The only real textual reason (the rest being "We can interpret this to mean something else") is quotes from the Gospel of Peter. The SUPPOSED "Gospel of Peter" was written in the latter 1/2 of the second century, about 100 years after Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That completely flies in the face of the post's original premise: "Did Pre-Gospel Christians Believe Judas Betrayed Jesus?" since it documents what someone believed 100 years after the timeframe we're discussing.

[That's his opinion. You're not doing much to disprove his point- and this is coming from someone who disagrees with him!] [Just because a phrase is not found in Scripture is not a guarantee it is false. "Electricity" is not found in any Bible, and we all appreciate having THAT. Just because a phrase is repeated by Freud- IF it was repeated by Freud- is no guarantee it is true OR false. Much of his speculations in Psychology seem disproven (he extrapolated from a non-representative sample to the entire world), but he was correct that people have "unconscious" desires and impulses. But anything should be examined on its own merits. Heck, I don't automatically disount anything vpw said just because he said it, and neither does Ralph! (We agree, last I checked, Jesus is the Christ, and vpw said that, for example.) So, Raf has an opinion that we were led into practicing a lie, and because of that, he's working for FREUD???? I bet that doesn't pay well- Freud's been dead a long time. Honestly, that's not going to convince anyone you're correct.] [Oh, he did that again? Let's see... The second quote was someone else, but John's refusal to use the simple "Reply"button after more than a decade to learn to use it obscures that. So, you meant the first part... Hm, looks like you DID address it in the same post...]

No, "Angels of Light" was like "the Challenging Counterfeit"- a book about things people claimed were of God, but were either staged or supernatural and evil in origin. (Depending on your POV.) The book painted with a broad brush- it said refusal to believe in The Trinity was proof of evil supernatural influence. I'm not sure what book that was in. I know none of the books I read contained them. I also know that the definitions started with things Leonard said which vpw later larded full of multi-syllabic words that only made things harder to understand-and introduced error as well.

I just answered your claim that the introduction actually proved something on the thread you made the claim in, so I won't repost my comments here. You know where to look, though. If you want a messageboard that runs exactly to your satisfaction, the only answer is- start your own messageboard. Of course, then you have to convince people it's worth visiting. (I speak from experience-I HAD a messageboard.) All messageboards have at least one admin/administrator and generally have moderators as well. All messageboards have rules and standards. If you disagree with the rules, you take it to the staff in private. If you don't like the answer you get, then you can leave and post somewhere else. (Again, I speak from experience, both as a poster and as staff.) Generally, messageboards follow what's seen as "COMMON" sense as well as basic internet etiquette. People who can't agree with either are generally unhappy and move from messageboard to messageboard. (I know you've done that-I've posted on another board where you DID leave because the really polite staff didn't conform to your vision of how you thought they should act.) So, the staff here decide what is acceptable to POST (they delete spam), what needs to be moved to ruder sections (hostile threads are moved), what needs to be moved on the basis of content (a movies/television forum is no place to discuss religious doctrine, for example), and what to leave alone, whether or not they need to contact a poster. What all of that means is- the staff decide, by their best judgement, what belongs where, and generally make good decisions even if any poster (including myself) disagrees. It's really poor conduct online to get hostile about them MOVING a thread but leaving it intact- moving it based on content. Honestly, think about it. Is "Doctrinal" a horrible place to post? I post threads there when I think they are appropriate. What do people expect when a thread is in "About The Way"? They expect a DIRECT relation to something in twi, not something completely unrelated with vpw's name tossed in to say "look- I mentioned vpw, so the thread belongs here." Some EXCUSE could be made to dump all kinds of irrelevant threads into "About The Way"- but that defeats the purpose of HAVING forums and sub-forums. They're split the way they are so people can navigate the content and know what to expect in a general way. I know what the staff go through here-I've been staff in the past. NOT HERE- I REFUSED moderator status on the board so I never modded THESE threads. But I know what it's like to moderate and I know that they do a good job even when I disagree. (If I don't like it, I can always just LEAVE.) Oh- and just because you FEEL persecuted is NEVER a guarantee anything is EVER about you. I've learned that lesson the hard way, myself. I hope you can get something from it.

On top of that, you missed the obvious meaning. Look- take it from the perspective of the people who worked on it. I got this from researchers who never heard of twi, vpw, etc. King James really wanted a good, reliable Bible people could read and use. He thought the Tyndale Bible was a STEP in the right direction- that's why there's influences from the Tyndale in the KJV. So, King James assigned a commission- translate a version of the Bible, in English, superior to all previously existing forms. The team was VERY dedicated. The result was the 1611 King James Version. For 1611, it was cutting-edge. For 2012, it's quaint and folksy. Centuries of improvements have gone into other versions. (A few were added incrementally to the KJV.) So, at the time, it was ground-breaking. Christians at the time now had a Bible good enough to be relied on and read at churches-in English. So, King James was pleased-as would any Christian at the time. The staff was pleased-as you might imagine, they'd done a great job with the tools at hand. So, the staff wrote something to the effect of "we are thankful we have a King that cared enough to have this done-it will bless all the Christians of the nation." That's really all their introduction meant-and it meant little to anyone not King James because the book is what mattered, not their introduction-a letter, really. That's why King James Versions don't carry that letter nowadays. So, the entire subject of the text-dump was a non-issue. It does not appear in King James Version Bibles. Most importantly, it certainly doesn't appear in "MY" Bible because I use a New American Standard Bible, and have for about a decade. That was produced in the 20th century, and does not include personal correspondence by translational staff from 1611. Now, if you want to believe that introduction wasn't holy, then I'd thoroughly agree-and point out nobody cares. If you want to believe that the Bible isn't holy, well, that's your privilege, but that huge text-dump did nothing to prove it.

On the one hand, I can freely admit that, at least part of the time, that the twi method relied on faking it. I agree the "excellor's sessions" relied on that, and were practice in faking it. On the other hand, I can freely admit that, at least part of the time, I'm convinced there was genuine godly stuff in spite of the twi method and the faking it of other times. I remember hearing that people get MORE convinced they're not faking it during INTERPRETATION or PROPHECY than tongues, because you can tell if you're making up meanings. (My wording.) I remember enough incidents involving interpretation or prophecy that I can't just blow them ALL off. (I CAN, however, blow off some.) I think John had a legitimate point about experiencing the power of God, but it got lost in the shuffle. I would say that- after experiencing the power of God in dramatic fashion in one's life- that it is easy to dismiss the concept that it is ALL fake. Power of God? Certainly. Is everything someone wants to attribute to God the power of God? Certainly NOT. Many so-called "supernatural" things have mundane explanations. vpw was amateur enough to fall for some and pass them along in the so-called "Advanced" class as actual, supernatural things. Yet stage magicians can produce them. So, I can say I've participated in some WELL-INTENTIONED error and lying when I thought I wasn't, and I've participated in some legitimate supernatural stuff in spite of the former.

I agree. I'm willing to hear any reasoned position on the subject, but I'm ok with not knowing exactly when.

Ooo, inspiration hit me..... Charlie Sheen Ferris Buehler's Day Off Matthew Broderick No, we linked through Broderick last page, so how about Charlie Sheen Ferris Buehler's Day Off Jennifer Grey

Bruce Almighty Jim Carrey the Mask

Correct, of course.