Zixar

I was mulling over Jerry's "SpiritCommunication" post, when something started bugging me. Didn't VPW make a similar statement when he was doing "The Giver and The Gift" that "God can only give what He is" too? Or have I gotten the two confused?

Jerry: Now, that's what I'm talking about! :)--> Another record to support your first factual error would be when God called Samuel as a boy, and he thought Eli was calling him. Then there is the burning bush, too... Good call.

Plotinus makes a good point, namely that preachers frequently expand upon the written records in order to make the lesson fresh, or to make it stick in the congregation's minds a bit better. After all, how many of us in TWI heard Ephesians quoted verbatim at us so many times it lost all impact? Giving Wierwille a pass on this one because of "preacher syndrome" doesn't validate the error, it just recognizes the source of it. I keep on saying this over and over, and will continue to do so: The only way for these error discussions to have any lasting value is to be as objective about them as humanly possible. If VPW said dechomai always meant one thing, and we can find examples where it means what he said lambano meant, then that's proof we can offer without emotion or sentiment. Or apeitheia/apistia. If he said something that turns out to be right, or at least defensible, we acknowledge it and move on. We don't argue just to prove everything he said was a lie, that only makes us look like idiots. We don't hang a man on inferences and implications, there is certainly enough rope in the facts themselves to do it without vengeance, disgust, or hate motivating us to see things that aren't there to make the job easier. In other words, if Hitler killed 6,000,000 Jews, we still have to give him a full trial to find him guilty of killing number 6,000,001. He'd have gone to the gallows for just 1, but justice would not be served by piling charges on without indisputable evidence. The difference between a trial and this endeavor is that in a trial, the lawyers are under no real compulsion to confuse their oratory with the truth. Whoever puts the better spin on the speech wins the trial. We can do better. Save the axe grinding for wood chopping, and stick to the facts. Wierwille never said everything out of his mouth was straight from revelation. Treating every niggling thing he said as if he did is pedantry taken to ridiculous extremes. Any hint that our arguments are made from malice diminishes their impact to the audience, regardless of their truth. Is that so hard to understand?

Kit: Then stay far, FAR away from this show! :)-->

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? :(-->

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???"

Tsk, tsk, tsk... No, you may have inferred that, but nothing I said implied that! Ha ha! Take THAT! [thrust, parry, riposte]

Rafael: I resent the implication that your implication is more relevant than my implication. --> Steve: I stand corrected. Good catch. :D-->

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)_______ :D-->

Well, it could have been a good movie, but typically these "Christian" movies (i.e., made by Christian groups outside of Hollywood) are so saccharine and maudlin they make cheesy Mexican soap operas look Shakespearean by comparison. Only a small niche market (Jesus Freaks who won't even go to a PG movie) buys tickets for them, so these movies never have any "legs", in showbiz parlance.

Me answer? No, me Zixar. ;)--> Okay, kidding aside, the answer is no. I never claimed otherwise. 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... :D-->

Not to be flip, but the appropriate reply here really is "sez you!" You claim that one verse is more important than the other, regardless of emphasis. If you get to judge what's more important than what, you're no better than Wierwille. And, since you're obviously better than he, your argument fails once again. :D--> Sez me.

Goey: The problem is that, a)If the Bible is God's Word, then God originated whatever was written down. (theopneustos) b) Given "a", then any figures of speech that exist in the Bible were meant to be there by the Author. c) Since figurative language connotes emphasis by definition, any figures in the Bible give emphasis to their content as well. d) Therefore, given "b" and "c", then God most certainly was aware that by using figures of speech, He was giving emphasis in those instances. If there is nothing wrong with that logical process, then this whole thing boils down to a quibble on the definition of "emphasis".

Rafael: Forgive me for being unclear. When I said "interpretational error" in my last post, I wasn't referring to a misinterpretation made by Wierwille... :D-->

Rafael: You said: As proof, you quote Wierwille as saying: Now, which man used the word "only", and which did not? If we add a word, do we still have the "Word of Wierwille"? :)--> The word "are" is not all-encompassing as you imply. By that logic, if Wierwille had once said "Oranges are fruit", and never listed another fruit anywhere, he meant that "all fruit are oranges." At least you see that it is an "interpretational error" now and not an "actual" one, which was what I was trying to say all along.

Rafael: I thought you were in on the discussion we had on another thread about inverses, converses, and contrapositives. Maybe not. You're no fun any more! :D-->

No one can mix a metaphor like you can, Lar! ;)-->

Goey: Exactly. Got it in one! Gold star for the week! :)--> As for the rest of your post, you've got a point, too. There's always a reason when emphasizing a statement. I never got the impression that Wierwille made it as black and white as figure=good, literal=bad. I never thought all his analysis of the figures was definitive, but the figures themselves do add emphasis, and therefore importance of varying degree to the verses. [This message was edited by Zixar on January 22, 2003 at 18:18.]

Rafael, I have no doubt that you can quote it at length, but it will not prove your point, at least not the way you've made it. The fallacy in your argument is that you've supposedly disproved Wierwille's statement by establishing the falsehood of its inverse. There is no definite relationship between the truth of a statement and the truth of its inverse. That sort of proof is only valid when you can establish the falsehood of the contrapositive to the statement. Broken down logically, here's what you've said so far, as I've understood it: This is incorrect. It establishes that the inverse is false, but it does nothing towards disproving the statement.

Never mind, someone already patented it... *sigh*

Actually, John, I just had an idea for a more-immersive video screen that wouldn't take up five feet of space. It would also make games run faster if they were written to take advantage of it because one of the raytracing correction calculations would become unnecessary. That would free up some of the CPU and GPU processing cycles. Wish I weren't too lazy to patent the thing... :)-->

Rafael: Whatever. I just think you're stretching this one awfully thin. I don't think Wierwille etched that figure of speech thing in stone as much as your thesis would require. Perhaps Mike has another perspective... ;)-->

Dot: Don't lose heart. Regardless of what plan you're on, if you do not reduce your TOTAL calorie intake, you aren't going to lose weight fast. Instead of no-fat or no-carb or all-meat diets, you might try a more balanced approach like the Zone diet.

Yes, Rafael, I see your point. You're specifically looking for scriptures which support your notion and presenting them as if they spoke for the whole Bible. What about Jesus? He was quite fond of using parables, metaphors, etc., to emphasize and illustrate his important points, even going so far as to say that all the commandments you stated as well as the rest of the law and prophets "hung" on the first two. I really think this is needless quibbling over concepts and definitions, rather than anything objectively falsifiable in PFAL. I think we need to move on to something else and not waste time on it.