Raf

I say give him the credit for it, WordWolf!

The Thomas Crown Affair to Remember

Love it

You are up

Cheating permitted after a couple of days. This was a recent Best Picture Oscar nominee. Not a blockbuster, but hardly obscure by definition.

SIT and TIP are by inspiration, not by revelation. I love how VPW can invent distinctions out of whole cloth and have people parrot that opinion as gospel decades after he lost the ability to con anyone out of another dime.

Please do a word study on firmament. Please show what that word means throughout scripture: empty space, or a solid structure? Please tell me, based on genuine historical research, what that word meant to the audience that originally read it. What did it mean to the first century church? Please show me any indication that Biblical Israel or the early Christian church was aware of the vastness of outer space. You won't find it. Science, not scripture, gave us this knowledge. P.S. You keep saying things along the lines of accusing me of sounding like a natural man, etc. I would appreciate it if you would cut the bs. If you're going to challenge my points, challenge them. This ad hominem nonsense is beneath you. Challenge the merits of what I'm saying, with facts instead of opinion. Saying it sounds like what a natural man would say dodges the issue of whether a natural man is approaching the subject matter with more intellectual honesty than you. I contend that on this issue, he is.

You can deny it all you'd like. You're flat out wrong, but go ahead. The truth needs no defense, remember? You can pretend the Bible says what you claim it does, but it doesn't. You can call me a natural man, but only one of us is letting the Bible speak for itself on this matter, and it's not you.

The second version of the clue contains a simple restating of the title of the first moving, using other words. Deafening Sound and unbelievable proximity... encounters of the third kind. :)

Terms of Endearment Jack Nicholson The Witches of Eastwick

The sounds are deafening. The action took place so near to me that I could touch it. And it culminated at Devil's Tower.

Can I respect that response and the heart behind it while noting that it doesn't really answer the question? I respect it primarily because "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" is an honest response. On SIT, you and I differ in our opinion as to what the evidence shows so far and what we anticipate further evidence will show or even CAN show. That doesn't quite apply here. John draws a very clear line in the sand, and I've attempted to question just how clear that line is. It sounds like a no-brainer on the surface, but when you look at what we've learned so far about the world and the universe, certain things in the Bible can no longer be taken literally or at face value. The firmament, an undeniably solid object, HAS to be God giving a great big "no comment" about the nature of the sky [considering the irrelevance of that subject to the overall story arc of scripture] or the Bible is wrong. So we allow that there are things stated as fact in the Bible that are not actually true in scientific terms, because those "facts" are irrelevant to the Bible's overall tale. My question remains unanswered, which is fine and acceptable, until one starts drawing lines and saying worldly wisdom MUST be rejected if it conflicts with the Bible. The history of Christianity does not live up to that standard. We have allowed our understanding to grow and approached the Bible differently because of that understanding (what we deride as world wisdom). If there's a line, at what Biblical teaching do we draw it? The order of the cosmos? Nope. Homosexuality and evolution? Many will say yep. So the line is somewhere between those two extremes. But does anyone have the arrogance to declare exactly where that line is? Is anyone even capable of such an achievement?

I actually know this without looking it up. Sad, eh? I'll give someone else a chance, though.

I guess what I'm saying is, in previous areas of scientific advancement, when science has conflicted with the understanding of the Bible at the time, it's the understanding of the Bible that gave way, not the science [eg, the firmament became the expanse, despite the absence of a shred of evidence justifying the latter translation]. Yet John comes here and says when "worldly wisdom" conflicts with the Bible, we should jettison worldly wisdom in favor of the scriptures. He cites two examples that are entirely scientific in nature: evolution and homosexuality. On evolution, the vast majority of biologists and scientists stand squarely against Genesis. Homosexuality as an area of scientific investigation appears headed in the same direction (that is, the consensus of science is that this is not a choice or rebellion but an orientation that is very much natural). If we are to conclude that science is wrong about evolution and homosexuality, and the Bible is right, I am asking what standard we apply when deciding when to alter our understanding of the scripture, as we NO DOUBT have done many times in the past, and when to hold firm in the face scientific consensus to the contrary. What's the line? Is there one? Or are these two examples obvious in a way that the issues raised earlier were not?

I was biting my tongue because I used the same movie on the other thread, as you've no doubt figured out. You are correct.

Anyway, I promised to get out of the serious side of this discussion and intend to keep that promise, so that's all you'll hear out of me in response to John. I just wanted to respond to his comments because I thought doing so would be constructive. Getting into another drawn out argument would not be constructive, so I'll let it go at that. John can have the last word on this exchange if he wants it.

"AirEast 31, do you wish to file a report of any kind to us?" "I wouldn't know what kind of report to file, Center." ... "Einstein WAS right." "Einstein was probably one of them." ... "If everything's ready here on the Dark Side of the Moon... play the five tones."

Assuming that to be true, the doctrine you assume regarding holy spirit may very well BE manmade. In fact, that is what you think about what many, many other religions and branches of Christianity teach about the Holy Spirit/holy spirit. So calling something "holy spirit" does not automatically mean you're dealing with something that's of God and not "manmade." If you have an incorrect understanding of "holy spirit" that IS manmade, and no "check engine" light to warn you something is amiss, you have no sense of anything being "broke." We're off topic here. The accuracy of TWI teaching on tongues, interpretation and prophecy is unrelated to the effectualness of prayer. You can have every prayer you want answered, and it still won't make your SIT experience Biblically genuine. Trinitarians say they have their prayers answered all the time, too. Does that mean the Trinity is true? One is not related to the other (and for those Trinitarians reading along, reverse it: people who don't believe in the divinity of Christ say they have their prayers answered all the time, too. Does that mean the Trinity is false?)

Chockfull, you left out the fact that John's statement there is classic straw man fallacy at work. Are you aware of ANY TWI critic who said "anyone who would consent to listening to someone teach the bible for 34 hours over 3 weeks MUST be brainwashed"? I'm not. I heard criticism that the class WAS brainwashing, but not that anyone who consented to sit through it "must be" brainwashed. The distinction is not subtle. Is anyone who signs up for a college course on Shakespeare "brainwashed"? Those classes are generally longer than PFAL, in terms of class time.

You're very much mistaken about the Biblical meaning of the word "firmament," John. I suggest you do some research in the matter. Here: I'll give you a head start. The firmament is not another word for "heaven" in the sense of the vastness of the universe. It was a FIRM ament, not an etherealament. And the water it was holding back was not perceived as being waaaaay out there beyond the observable universe. It was right up there. In truth, the stars are not IN the firmament as described in the Bible, unless you change the Biblical sense to mean something it is not saying. Change "firmament" to "universe" and all your problems are solved, except the pesky little problem that you're no longer preaching what the Bible says: you're changing your Biblical interpretation to suit what we know to be true from those egotistical scientists with manmade educations. Read through the Bible when it comes to stars, without bringing any preconceived notions to the table, and you do NOT get the sense that they are these humongous balls of gas and heat burning billions of miles away. Rather, you get the impression that they're little set decorations that were added as an afterthought, AFTER the formation/making/creation of the sun (even though we KNOW many stars are quite a bit older than the sun). Without the sun, there is no night and day on earth. The experience of light on earth during the day and darkness at night is entirely dependent on our rotation relative to where the sun is. There could be no day and night on earth without the sun, no evening or morning. This, of course, completely ignores the question of WHERE it was night and day on the first day, considering that on a spherical earth, it's always evening and morning SOMEWHERE. Now, on a flat earth, which the Bible does absolutely nothing to contradict, it's conceivable that it could be evening and morning throughout the earth all at once. But we reject a flat earth, right? Because the Bible doesn't teach it? Wrong: at best, the Bible doesn't address it; at worst, the Bible assumes it and does nothing to contradict it. In step those egotistical scientists with their manmade educations. Plus, the earth did not precede the sun in its formation/making/creation. The sun came first, then the earth. The Bible lists it backward (and depending on whether you hold to "gap theory" between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, the Bible lists the earth as being older by a longshot). Why? I agree with you about Joshua's perception of the sun moving as opposed to the earth. The issue is not that he was wrong. The issue is that the Bible gives no indication, anywhere, that the truth is the other way around, relatively speaking. Egotistical scientists with their manmade educations taught you that, not the Bible. By the way, when the sun "stood still" for Joshua, what actually happened? I ask you again: if you are willing to reject the clear teaching of scripture when it comes to the age of the earth relative to the sun (earth is older in scripture), the relative age of the sun in relation to other stars (sun is a tiny bit older, but all are the same age according to scripture), the fact that there's no glass dome over the earth (look it up, that's what the firmament is, not your revisionist explanation), the fact that the sun revolves around the earth and not the other way around (scripture gives NO indication that the earth revolves and every indication that it's fixed in place with all the stars and planets moving in relation), then where do you draw the line separating world wisdom from acceptable science. I submit that you have rejected God's Word countless times in favor of "world wisdom" and don't even recognize it. P.S. You said the devil spirits who caused the flood are being held in the waters beyond the firmament... assuming such silliness to be true, why do spirit beings need a physical holding place?

Think of the first word of the second movie. Not a lot of movies with that word at the end of their title. This is a recent movie that was nominated for Best Picture, so as obscure as it was, it was not SO obscure as to be inadmissible for our game. ;)

A nine-year-old orphaned by the attack on the World Trade Center searches for the lock that matches a mysterious key left behind by his father. His search leads him to answers to much larger questions at Devil's Tower in Wyoming.

Sorry for the delay. Here we go: a VERY well known movie, but not a lot of iconic lines. "AirEast 31, do you wish to file a report of any kind to us?" "I wouldn't know what kind of report to file, Center." ... "Einstein WAS right." "Einstein was probably one of them."

Curious to know where you draw the line, John. Left on its own, the Bible does give the impression that "night" and "day" preceded the origin of the sun. Left on its own, the Bible does give the impression that the sky was a gigantic glass dome (the firmament) keeping "the waters above" from crashing down on us. Left on its own, the Bible gives the impression that the stars are little lights IN the firmament. Left on its own, the Bible gives the impression that the earth does not move, but the sun moves relative to the earth. Joshua cries out "sun, stand still," not "earth, stop rotating." We accept the wisdom of the world that none of those things is so. And we do so only after persecuting the worldly wisdom that sought to correct the error. So now we say with confidence that evolution and homosexuality are line crossers: that no matter that the vast majority of biologists accept evolution as fact, including the evolution leading to modern man, that no matter that every scientific inquiry into homosexuality is leading researchers to the conclusion that these people are born that way and do not choose their orientation any more than straight people choose their orientation, THIS is the world wisdom that must be rejected in favor of scripture? I just want to know where the line is between accepting science for what it demonstrates by the evidence and rejecting it as "worldly wisdom." Contradicting scripture can't be it, because if that's the standard, then we have to profess a flat earth under a glass dome holding back an oceanic sky, with the sun, moon and stars all located inside the dome. We DO reject that, right? So contradicting scripture can't be the line. So what is?

Came back from the mechanic today. He said there were two things wrong with my car. First, he said, the engine was about to fall apart. If I waited another day to get it fixed or replaced, I would have needed a new engine or a new car in short order. "That's strange," I said. "Normally if something's wrong with my engine, the check engine light comes on to warn me." "That," my mechanic said, "is the second thing that's wrong with your car. The check engine light isn't working." ... John, I respect your position of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But I submit that it's broke, and you're missing it because you can't even see that your check engine light is broken. ... I can't get past the fact that we were taught by a con man who employed a methodology indistinguishable from a fraud, producing results indistinguishable from fraud, yet somehow believe there's nothing fraudulent about what we did. I understand that there's disagreement about this, and I respect it. But that's where I stand.