Raf

Oh, it can't be THAT hard! :) Do you have a par (the number of moves it should take us to get it)? Never mind. I can do it in 4. Barrymore was in Key Largo with Lauren Bacall Bacall was in Dogville with Nicole Kidman Kidman was in Billy Bathgate with Dustin Hoffman Hoffman was in Hook with Robin Williams Buster Keaton/Johnny Depp

Awww, it's not THAT hard. :) Two words. The first three pics point to one word.

Let's try this:

Another note on John 19:28. Wierwille contradicts the Word's Way in the PFAL book. Here's what The Word's Way says about John 19:28: Now, PFAL on the exact same subject: This is a blatant contradiction. Now, the PFAL explanation is consistent with the definition provided, but it contradicts the explanation in The Word's Way.

Why, it makes all the difference between an unerring, accurate Word and a crumbled jumble of writing. Yes, it matters. When we go to the bank, we demand accuracy. We ought to think it supremely important. That's what my Focker in the Word taught me. :)

Ok, there's therapy for that illness... Frankly, I'm trying to think of a good puzzle.

Heh heh heh. Of course, I meant "crucified." I don't know if "cru-cu-fixion" is fatal. It may even tickle a little.

===== On the pro-four-crucufied-with-Jesus front: I've checked the Greek word translated "midst" in John 19:18, and in every NT usage where it's translated "midst," it appears to mean either in the middle of one thing/person (the veil of the temple was torn in the midst) or among more than two things/people (in those days, Peter stood up in the midst...). In every other usage other than John 19:18, the word "midst" is never used of one thing/person being between two other things/people. The word is translated "between" in I Cor. 6:5, but it appears to be an incorrect translation (can anyone judge between his brethren: the sentence is open to the mere possibility of two brethren, but appropriately, leaves itself open for many more than that). So, if the usage of "midst" in John 19:18 is consistent with every other usage of "midst," then John must be saying that there were two crucified on either side of Jesus, not just one. Either that, or he used incorrect grammar, or there's another manuscript out there that uses "between" instead of "in the midst." Or I'm wrong. Cynic: I'm almost there. :)

Back on the "allos and heteros" front, Wierwille mangles his own definition in The Word's Way. On p. 237, he wrote: "heteros means "the 'other' or second of two when and where there are only two." We have already shown that while there are verses where heteros can carry this meaning, there are also verses where it cannot possibly carry this meaning. There are also verses (turn the other cheek) where allos can carry the exact same meaning. This, too, has already been shown and is indisputable. While Wierwille did note that there are instances in which heteros can have a different meaning, I'm not aware of any such qualifying statement about his disproven (or at the very least inconsistent) definition of allos. Okay, that said, let's flip to page 246, where Wierwille writes the following: Did you catch it? He goes from heteros meaning "the other or second of two" to heteros meaning "two other." If heteros means "the other or second of of two when and where there are only two," then the word other cannot be heteros. Quite the opposite: it MUST be allos if that definition is being used to prove anything. Why? Beacuse heteros is supposed to mean the other of two. Luke does not say "And there were also two 'second of twos when only two are involved.'" I have one hand, and I have another (heteros) hand. That second hand is the second of two when only two are involved, because you're counting the first one. If I said I had one hand and two other hands, how many hands do I have? Three! It says in Luke that TWO OTHERS were brought out. Two plus Jesus makes THREE, and therefore heteros CANNOT BE USED HERE. But it is. There are two conclusions to choose from. First possible conclusion: Wierwille's definitions of allos and heteros in these specific verses are correct. If so, there must be other manuscripts that use allos instead of heteros in that verse. But if that's the case, Wierwille has committed an error because he cites the use of heteros as an example of unbelievable accuracy. Second possible conclusion: heteros is correctly used here, but does not mean in this case what Wierwille says it means in this case. If so, Wierwille has committed an error. Either way, it's an actual error.

Shaz, Thanks for the idea. Let's call this person Quandry. Or Quandary, if you're feeling particularly grammatical. :) Raf

Sudo, That's exactly right. "I'm sorry I said what I think out loud."

It's The Blues Brothers The dog is from Blue's Clues.

Can be got? Sheesh. If I were a grammar professor, I'd... Wait, I am a grammar professor! Oh no! Now everyone knows I'm bluffing!

A friend asked me to post this. I'm sure this friend will be reading, and I'll pass along any replies. **** I am in a quandry..... I have to tell my teens (14 and 17 yers old)about the dark side of TWI. I left TWI within the past few months, but they are still involved (yet not fully committed) along with my spouse (also not fully committed). I have been in much communion with the Father about how to tell my teens. I know I cannot express on this post all the stuff that goes through my heart regarding this issue. Please allow me space to sort some of these thoughts. I appreciate any insight/guidance anyone has. Please understand that I am trying to look at this from their point of view. What might they think? (Side note: I left TWI after 4 to 5 years of contemplation and 1-1/2 years after finding GSC. I did not leave because of GSC. I read the stories. Some I believed and some I really wondered about. Then I told myself, that even if these were true TWI had changed. Any organization made of people will have sh** happen. But the hole in my sole grew bigger this past year to the point that it was effecting my kids...and that's when I left. My kids' experiences with TWI have been good. They were not acutely aware of M & A. I shielded them from much of LCM's rantings. They know my spouse & I do not agree with TWI debt teachings and have questioned Eve's garden sin. They know I don't believe TWI is THE household of God. I have taught them to the best of my ability to be honest with their emotions...to allow themselves to feel...to not stuff down & suppress what they feel.) 'Well, what about all the abuse that has gone on? There are no words sufficient to fully communicate the humiliation and torment that some folks have experienced. Yet these incidents were in the past. People change. God is merciful. Life goes on. TWI has "changed." The people in TWI we have been involved with are good people. Perhaps the folks abused are exagerrating. If we turn from TWI aren't we acting judgmentally & harshly...just to leave our fellowship and friends?' My heart breaks to try to communicate what I am trying to figure out. I'm just going to go back and forth with my thoughts and see if anyone out there can pick up on and maybe better disentangle the web in my mind. I think, to just be honest with them. Tell them what I've heard and read here. Tell them what I first heard in 1986(?) from the John Lynn tapes and how I came to my decision then to continue to stand with TWI. Do I tell them that RFR & DM "might" be lesbians? "Might be" is not enough. People are innocent until proven guilty. What about the fact the TWI has never offered any closure to the allegations, never offered counsel to abuse victims? Do I KNOW that D. M**nyh*n knew what was happening and covered for LCM? Do I KNOW that? I have to admit that I don't know that. Such churning in the soul....I wish I were Yoda.

That's why I said "sort of," Sudo. I thought the apology was positively Clitnonesque. Downright offensive, if you ask me.

My favorite reproof (although I'm not sure it's silly) is when a believer said to me, "See? Worked like a charm!" To which I replied, "Charms don't work!!" :)

As delightful as I find that photo, I don't think it's appropriate for this site.

I think you owe someone a cup of CAWFEE!!!

It is.

Thankya, George. Feel free to confirm if someone else gets it, since you obviously did.

You can stay. And you can have your ultra sweetened cup of vaguely coffee-flavored beverage. It's just not coffee. :)

He sort of apologized on Jan. 12.

:)

Everytime I get in there, it's empty. I'm starting to take it personally. :)