Raf

Kyrie Elaison is not English or Latin. It's Greek. Meanwhile you should look up the lyrics to Kyrie.

Well THAT narrows it down to the road that I must travel.

"A man curses because he doesn't have the words to say what's on his mind." *** "'Black: Destitute of light, devoid of color. Enveloped in darkness, hence, utterly dismal or gloomy as, 'The future looked black.'" "Pretty good with them words, ain't ya?" "Soiled with dirt. Foul. Sullen. Hostile. Forbidding, as, 'a black day.' Foully or outrageously wicked as, 'black cruelty.' lndicating disgrace, dishonor or culpability. And there's others. 'Blackmail.' 'Blackball.' 'Blackguard.'" "Yeah, man. That's something, all right." "Let's look up 'white.' Here. Read." "'White: The color of pure snow. Reflecting all the rays of the spectrum. The opposite of black. Free from spot or blemish.' 'lnnocent?' 'Pure.' Huh? Ain't this something?"

When you realize you want to spend the rest of your life with someone, you want the rest of your life to start as soon as possible.

You wouldn't believe me if I told you. Amber Heard.

Good Will Hunting

Well done, Chockfull.

You probably wouldn't believe me if I told you. ;)

You know if I realized the opening post was from 11 years ago I MIGHT not have split the threads.

In case he's busy: Hogan's Heroes is correct. He had me at "It's a comedy," which I will always hear in Gilbert Gottfried's voice.

That would be an example of it, not an explanation of it. It also assumes the verse does not mean precisely what it says.

ALMOST... I have the first half, but stuck on the second. My guess is the OG. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.

I agree with Nathan. It looks like this traces back past Wierwille to Bullinger.

I disagree. 1. Who is that author? What are his credentials? Where did he study? What are his sources? We genuinely have NO IDEA. Amazon tells us nothing. He does have a website. Doesn't she'd much light. He's a Trinitarian, so that rules out a Wierwille clone. Still could have had some intersection with TWI. But not enough to render a verdict either way [technically, that's a not guilty, but I'd go with a hung jury]. 2. This is one guy. You said referenceS. Plural. But can you find another one that's clearly not TWI influenced? I couldn't. I tried, and came up with the same guy. Others clearly have TWI fingerprints. I mean, it's a Bullinger doctrine. Surely TWI didn't originate it.

Oh my. HUGE TWI connection there. The Revised English Version of the Bible (REV, not to be confused with the Revised English Bible, REB) was developed by Spirit and Truth Fellowship International. About | Spirit & Truth (spiritandtruthonline.org) John Schoenheit pretty much runs the show, with accountability (this is not intended to in any way discredit the hard work they put into it). There's even a Wierwille on the team.

This thread will be home to the conversations that branched off the Idioms of Permission thread, some of which were kind of off topic. Since those posts were written BEFORE this one, they'll appear before this one on this thread. Enjoy.

I have never heard of anyone else using this "idiom of permission" explanation outside of TWI and its offshoots. And my comments on its usage were on topic. I'll either move off topic posts to another thread or otherwise remove them.

I'm only going to address the portion in bold. I no longer believe in God. And I do believe that religion has caused some real harm in this world. But it has also done some immense good. Not to mention, much, much evil has been done in the name of "not-religion." Evil acts are evil, whether committed in the name of God or in the name of "not-God." The difference, in my opinion, is that evil committed in the name of God expects a reward, whereas evil committed in the name of not-God expects no punishment. In the grand, cosmic scheme of things, the second group of evildoers are correct. But they're still evil. Which gives rise to the question, who gets to decide what is and is not "evil"? I refer you to the thread, Are you more moral than Yahweh," which explores the idea of morality and its origin. But we are getting farther from the thread topic, which is ok IF enough time has passed AND the person who started the thread is ok with its evolution.

Are we all just going to ignore that SirGuessALot has returned after an 11-year absence? DUDE! Welcome back. Mulling over what you wrote. May be worthy of its own topic. Chockful: I have no reply to what you wrote. It seems to me your comments would draw as much opposition from most Christians as my comments do. Good night folks.

I need a ruling from the judges on whether this would be off topic. Also, just checking, Oldies, you know I'm not a believer anymore right? Just checking. For what it's worth: I do not think the writers intended figurative or misleading language here. Paul believed the "presence" of Christ [what we call the "Return"] would take place in his lifetime, or at least in the lifetime of his initial readers. It's hard to imagine that he wrote "we who are alive and remain" thinking "we" was a reference to people living 2,000 or more years in the future. The Jesus of the gospels said what he said. He did not mean "figuratively speaking," nor did he say "by 'generation' I'm referring to people in a future so distant you would not even recognize it." And whoever wrote Revelation did not have a creative definition of "quickly" that implicitly included the words "in geological terms." I do not think there's a figure of speech that can reconcile "this generation" and "quickly" with "2,000 + years later..." Any "accurate" interpretation would have to start there. In my opinion.

See, "God-like mind reading capabilities" is what turns clear writing into "he didn't mean that, he was using the idiom of permission that I made up." *** "God says what he means and means what he says!" Fine. Here's what he says. "He didn't mean that." *** Sorry, I'm not the one doing the mindreading. Just the Biblereading

Jokes aside, I think the simplest expression of my thought is: The idiom of permission was not the intent of the original writers. It only became necessary when the character of Yahweh developed into someone who would never do what earlier scriptures clearly said he did.

Almost thou persuadest me to engage in argument.

Ditto

In my humble opinion, the so-called Idiom of Permission as an explanation for Yahweh's behavior in the Old Testament does not survive Occam's Razor, which is "the answer that requires the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one." The Old Testament writers told us who Yahweh was. His character changed over time. Different writers gave him different attributes, depending on the point they were making for the story they were telling. When God needed to be limited, he was. When he needed to be omni-everything, he was. When an explanation was needed for why Israel did not prevail in a military conflict, God had a problem seeing through lead overcoming chariots of iron. The Idiom of Permission provides a way to explain away that which was never intended to be dismissed in the first place. God sent the Flood. He didn't allow it to be sent. Genesis is clear. He did it. The angel of death in Egypt (which, it must be said, never happened)? That was Yahweh too. Exodus is explicit. But He's LOVE! He couldn't have! So we invent an explanation to retroactively absolve him of responsibility for that which he explicitly wanted credit! What happened? This is not hard. The people worshipping God changed. Their values changed. Their God (who cannot change) changed with them. Suddenly he never would have done any such thing. But he said he did? Hmmm. It was a figure of speech! Get it? Anyway, that's my nickel. I know, it's supposed to be two cents. But inflation's a bitch.