Raf

It's orthotomounta. "Actual" error disproven. Score one for Mike!

CM: You're looking at the wrong word. I'm asking about the word "rightly-dividing." Everything I've checked says "orthotomeo," but it's been so long I don't remember if I checked an interlinear. Just curious.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's orthotomeo in the interlinear. Anyone still have one handy and can transliterate?

But, the word was orthotomounta. PFAL says so! :blink:

Sure. If God told you to tell a mountain to move, you tell that mountain to move, dangit. And BELIEVE it! If God doesn't tell you to to tell a mountain to move, and you tell that mountain to move, and you do not doubt in your heart that the mountain will move, don't be surprised if a guy comes by to offer you a jacket with reeeeeallllly long sleeves.

I don't know. I haven't mastered it. :)

What I always found odd about that is that VPW definitely understood that meaning of "study," because he goes into intricate detail about it in the Blue Book. In PFAL he deliberately uses a mistranslated word to make a valid point (study!), even though in the Blue Book he goes into perfect detail about why that word does not mean "study." Such is life.

By the way, as to my statement, quoted by WTH: What's good for the goose... An observation based on evidence, not a judgment. Granted, I left out "ubiquitously," but nonetheless, the point remains valid. Hey, "dodge, distract and deny" were HIS words, and he's PROUD of them. He might take issue with my use of "disproved," but I'm not here to make his argument for him.

What the Hey: Wait just a cotton picking minute: Mike has called me an unfit researcher 575,600 times, and you get on my case for using it ONCE? Hypocrite. How many times have you told Mike to stop judging because he called someone "unfit researcher"? Did you tell Mike not to judge me when he said I was "not credible" a few posts back? How about "plagiarism crybabies"? Ever tell him to stop judging for his incessant namecalling? How about his psychoanalysis of my approach to PFAL? Not only do you fail to tell him to stop judging, you JOIN him in said judgment. It seems to me you reserve the right to judge those with whom you disagree, but you pull out the "don't judge" scriptures when it suits your need. Assessing and judging aren't the same things. Calling Mike an idolatrous sycophant misogynist is judging, and I sin every time I do it. God forgive me. Saying he insists on inserting complexity into the simple is not judging; it's reading comprehension, and... Oh, now I've identified the problem. Forget I said anything.

I was challenged just this weekend on my "hypochondriac" analysis on my Web site. A hypochondriac believes he IS sick (not WILL BE, IS). Goes to the doctor, and lo and behold, nothing's wrong. Fear does not produce those results. The challenge: if the hypochondriac keeps going to that doctor, eventually a negative result will come back, which proves that fear is believing and that it produces the results. After I stopped laughing, I sent this reply: "If a hypochondriac keeps going to a doctor, eventually there will be a negative result? Well, DUH! Everyone gets sick. What does that prove? If someone who had perfect faith kept going to a doctor for physical check-ups, eventually a negative report will come: not because the person failed to believe, but because we have imperfect fallen bodies that will, praise God, one day be changed! Did Wierwille believe for cancer? I don't think he did. But he got it, and he died. I don't blame his lack of believing, I blame the fact that we live in a fallen world, and he was human."

Actually, there's a different problem with this, aside from the one Oakspear mentioned. In 100% of these cases (the ones you read about), the calamity has already taken place. It doesn't prove anything. It's the old "blame Job" approach. Find a guy when he's just lost all his kids, watch him say "I always feared something terrible would happen to my kids" (which, by the way, EVERY PARENT WHO EVER LIVED fears), and then JUMP ON HIM for having fear in his life, effectively BLAMING him for what happened! It's horse hit. I feared that I would not get promoted last summer. I believed, actively, that I would not get promoted last summer. I confessed my belief to others that I would not get promoted last summer. Do You Know What I Did Last Summer?

I missed that last paragraph, Mark. Thanks for re-posting. Mike, you're the only unfit researcher here, unwilling to accept the simplicity of what's written, looking for hidden meanings and dodging, distracting and denying whenever your thesis is disproved. Even WIERWILLE did not accept what you say about PFAL! What's really sad about your constant stream of lies is that you're lying only to yourself.

I didn't say I believed that. I only said it was a possibility (and given his lies on other subjects, such as the documented lie of the snowstorm in Tulsa, it is not at all outside his character). The 3,000 books story is not worth debating. If true, it proves nothing. If false, it disproves nothing. So I'm not going to waste my time with it.

Incorporating facts into the Wierwille mythology is like incorporating chocolate into a photo processing machine. How's this: Wierwille lied about throwing 3,000 books away. PFAL has been put to the test and found wanting.

There he goes changing the subject again. Mike, for the umpteenth time, if you want to start a thread on whether the BIBLE is God-breathed, have at it. This thread is about PFAL. Stop trying to change the subject. Just out of curiosity, why does your exaltation of PFAL require you to attack the integrity of God's Word (The Bible is the Word of God: according to PFAL)? P.S. PFAL does not claim itself to be God-breathed. You are reading that into the text based on the flawed articulation of an imperfect work. PFAL directly sets itself in contrast with God-breathed, and no amount of lying or obfuscation on your part can change the plain reading of the text.

Here are the tricks I know: 1: Every whole number greater than zero (is that redundant?) is divisible by 1. 2: Look at the last digit. If it's even, the number is divisible by 2. 3: Add the digits. If the sum is divisible by 3, the number is divisible by 3. 4: Look at the last TWO digits. If that number is divisible by 4, the entire number is divisible by 4. 5: Look at the last digit. If it's 5 or 0, the number is divisible by 5. 6: Apply the rules for both 2 and 3. 7: There's no rule for 7. Get busy dividing. 8: Look at the last THREE digits. If that number is divisible by 8, the entire number is divisible by 8 (I never found that one very helpful. :)) 9: Add all the digits. If the sum is divisible by 9, the number is divisible by 9. 10: If it ends in 0, it's divisible by 9. 20: If it ends in 0 and the number before it is even, it's divisible by 20. Now this is a question: 30: If the last number is 0 and the rule for 3 applies, then it's divisible by 30. True? False? I just made that up, but it seems rational.

George is correct.

Your ability to accuse me of making the very mistakes YOU are making is astonishing. Actually, I did not skip that part. You see, I went straight to that part with a simple equation (VPW just LOVED simple equations). Here's the equation: IF PFAL is God-breathed AND PFAL gives an explanation of the characteristics of God-breathed works THEN PFAL will exhibit those qualities. The way I see it, the first IF is in question. For you, the first IF is already answered. That's why your method fails every time it's tried. Your version is "SINCE PFAL is God-breathed and..." The problem is, you can't say "SINCE" because you haven't proved your case. You're making an assumption, and a poorly reasoned one at that. So, IF PFAL is God-breathed, surely it will stand up to its own test. So, put PFAL to the test. PFAL has been put to the test and been found wanting.

This is terrific, Paw.

You could have just said the sum of the digits of any number minus that number is always divisible by nine, you know. :) Why is that, anyway?

Mike! You made a funny! This is like Gollum calling Sam obsessed! I'm proud of you, lad!

I do not believe in believing. I believe in God. He honors believing. That, I believe.

I have no intention of "ripping PFAL apart," and never have. My intention was explicit: to show that it does not live up to its own definition of "God-breathed." You've turned off your ciritical thinking on this one, and, not surprisingly, you're proud of that fact. That's fine with me. But the truth that there are errors in PFAL is there, it's documented, and your refusal to really come to grips with that truth had turned you into Smikeol. For me to resolve "apparent" errors in PFAL, I would have to agree that they are merely "apparent." Some of them probably are. But not all, and as long as ANY are actual errors, your thesis is disproven. What's it been, two, three years since we all worked through that thread? And .. you... have... yet...to...resolve...a...single...error. Some "master."

... "Now I've abandoned all reason, and the world is just ROSY!" Mike, the discrepancy here is that when I say "see it for what it is," what I mean is "see it for what it is." When YOU say "see it for what it is," you mean "see it for the idol I have turned it into." See the difference? Of course not. Too much sand in your eye. Or something.

Possible and documented. Repeatedly. I'd ask you to pull your head out of the sand, Mike, but I'm not sure that's where it is.