wof and living 120 years

Slyzr

Well-known member
I can't Joe. I was corrected and moved on. The number of times I've said to you or Ted or James that you were correct over the years...and apologized, has been forgotten by you. Can you name a single time where you've said, Pete's right?

I have a harder time finding any instance.
Or he's revealed the ranks he's joined. I guess you're thinking it makes sense to ask someone if they believe they are "infallible"? To me, the question is bizarre and not conducive to civil any meaningful discourse. Let's talk about where we disagree, and examine our disagreement. It's more productive to highlight error than it is to impugn the one making a point. My dubious infallibility has very little to do with a single facet of Greek grammar. I am capable of producing correct analysis from time to time.

I'm a teacher. Teachers err...I teach my kids to point out my error as I'm writing on the board. They win points for that. I don't swirl counterclockwise around the toilet bowl because my kids caught me making a mistake. I'm proud of those who can see error and expound on what they see and why.

Equivocation ........

Not sure that is living , but we tend to it.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Sigh Part 1
Um, you should revisit a dictionary as to what "persuade" means.
Revisiting:
To persuade: to cause (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument.
"it wasn't easy, but I persuaded him to do the right thing"
Similar: prevail on, talk someone into, coax, convince, make ,get, press someone into, induce, win someone over, bring someone around,,argue someone into, pressure someone into, pressurize someone into, coerce, influence, sway, prompt, inveigle, entice, tempt, lure, cajole, wheedle someone into, get around, blarney, prod someone into, reason someone into, procure, sweet-talk, smooth-talk, soft-soap, twist someone's arm

cause (someone) to believe something, especially after a sustained effort; convince. "he did everything he could to persuade the police that he was the robber"

If anything but the Truth Himself does any of that, I've defeated my own purpose. The truth persuades far better than I could ever hope to.
If I teach a child that 1 plus 1 is equal to 2, then I persuade him to that fact. Persuade does not indicate some sort of trickery.
I'm thinking it's high time you revisit your dictionary. Maybe yours is better than mine...I can present a convincing argument, but the truth of my argument must do all the convincing. When it's me doing the convincing, your conviction can be taken down by a simple ad hom. Happens all the time on this board.

It is "reasoning or argument" (Oxford, btw). Bottom line: if you teach, you persuade. It's what you do.
Again...revisit your dictionary.
Or you can't budge from your presuppositions.
Such a weird answer...why do you avoid what Jesus was saying? "Have this kind of faith...YOU TOO CAN say...Every time you attack me like this, you're proving that it's YOUR presuppositions that are impeding any honest discussion. You do not need to know Greek to see what Jesus was saying. You just have to remove the ubiquitous impotence of the ages.
You mean the ones who know Greek far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far better than you? It's funny how I had a multiple email conversation with the man over one verse in scripture, was allowed to reproduce this phrase, and from this phrase you denigrate and disparage the man.
I never have. I disparage the "ubiquitous" argument. He espouses it as has every ubiquitous scholar. The argument is still specious. The man is not a single argument.

And as far as grammar goes, Bob. There is no such thing a "far far far, etc." You can only go so far. The genitive case has a limited, finite number of uses..."in God" in this case would normally include the preposition "eis," "in", and the sentence would say, "Exete pistin eis ton Theon," only with the Greek letters I am too lazy to reproduce. That was the point Marios the neophyte was making as well. It's not exceptional talent, wisdom or understanding that produces this statement. It's a smattering of basic Greek grammar...in fact...a smattering of linguistics, because in languages where there are cases, like Latin and German, these situations present themselves early in discovery. And your friend acquiesced to the possibility and went with the "ubiquitous interpretation." And THAT is precisely why this discussion is so important, and when it is forced into the domain of ad hominem and cantankerous acrimony, the resultant blather obfuscates the FACT that Jesus is intentionally inviting us to HIS level of performance.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Please, Pete, tell me the deep reasons why -- and don't leave out any detail -- he used the term "ubiquitous understanding." Tell me about the long conversation that you were not privy to. Tell me all the details as to why this had to be the conclusion.

Or you can just throw mud some more. Because you obviously understand Greek translation -- across the board, not just looking at biblehub and blueletterbible -- far, far better than men who do not use biblehub, men who understand Greek so well that they can speak it, read it, write it, transliterate it, translate it, and even screw it up sometimes -- but they screw it up in a way that still has more intelligence about Greek than you or I possess.
I get it...with you, I'm absolutely wasting my time. The ethers that these gods have attained are so far beyond anything we can attain, that their droppings must be gilded and deposited on the highest plinths of immortality. This Is your "appeal to authority" that disarms all argument. Obviously there is nothing else to be said, when Dr. Wallace, or any other revered master, never present, has spoken or been quoted in part.

I get it.

This comment from you is downright ignorant.
When you buy into "sacred, time worn, ubiquitous error" as sacred...you're absolutely right...and Jesus spews platitudes about "fig trees" that don't mean fig trees at all...or you... despite the withered, dead tree....and the disciples going on to do as He did. We are predestined to ubiquitous impotence...and ignorance.
Oh the world is so blessed to have you writing on public forums.
Yeah...and you're more full of stuffing than a Christmas turkey. Where's the hobby horse when you need it?
And if you fractured a bone tomorrow you would still be on crutches for months.
Or not...I've seen folks throw their crutches aside and play soccer in a tournament the next day, when their sprain was so bad the doctor had prescribed three months. The point is, I lay my hands on the sick. They recover or not...My job is to lay on my hands. Simple.

And I'm honest, Bob. I'm not trying to impress. When the kid was healed, I got in trouble, and got called into the principal's office for "healing Juan." It was a Christian school. I wasn't supposed to be teaching you get healed by the laying on of hands...but we won the soccer tournament.
I currently have a hole in my roof. The roofers will be here the week of November 15th to fix my roof. That's how busy we are here because of bad storms that this desert does not usually get (but we do get them cyclically, so climate change advocates can kiss my...) My office began to take in water, so I had to stand guard with a ShopVac to suck up any water that came in.

This led me to watch Radar apps on my computer to see if we were going to get rain so I could prepare. More than once I saw a major storm form in the mountains, come down toward my house and literally split in the middle and go around me.
  • I didn't pray
  • After my wife's death, I told God he could only sit on the other side of the room if he visited
  • I yell at God constantly
  • I blame God constantly
And you'll tell me he loves me anyway, so he split the storm anyway. Except that he didn't split the storm the other 12 times and my room is in ruins. And why does he have to split the storm, knowing what he knows, he could have just had the storm not show up in the first place.
Look who's relying on Cleo. I'll tell you you'll be working it all out with him. You're old enough to defend your own choices.

Matt 17:20 --
AMP - size of a mustard seed
KJV/NKJV - as a grain of mustard seed <--
NASB - size of a mustard seed
NET - size of a mustard seed
NIV - faith as small as a mustard seed <--
NRSV - size of a mustard seed

Ok, we have to throw out half the bible translations (ok, Ted, all of them). So Pete's criteria says that the NIV is the most accurate. (My words, his mouth.)
The NIV is the LEAST accurate. Greek "os"...English "as". There is no element of "size" anywhere in the Greek. Only in the ubiquitous misunderstanding that has been handed down for a couple centuries. What do I care what you think? What do I care what you accept? What do I care what you throw out? Bad translations forewarn...and they exist. The KJV/NKJV chose the literal, obvious translation...and that is my chosen preference as far as English translations go. I have favorite translations in French as well...and there are several who make the same error as the English NIV. Translator's right to differ. It's a God given right.

It's little things like this that make it funny that you are trying to school me on language and language translation. Even I can see the fallacy in your methods.
Good for you.
So you don't have faith. Since God measures out faith, this would mean that God is in charge of whether you have faith or not. So you couldn't produce a miracle on cue if you wanted -- it's up to God.

And if you can't, then when God measured your faith he made sure it was smaller than a mustard seed. Because IF your faith was but the size "as a" (for you) mustard seed nothing would be impossible. But obviously some things are not accomplished, so God is playing with us and laughing at us .... and your argument goes up in smoke
This is actually getting tedious.

God measured out the word...the seed fell into the ground. The GROUND has the SEED...Here's a newsflash. Do not harvest the field. Be a husbandman to the seed, and see that no weeds grow. Remove rocks. Water and allow the sun to shine. The seed will do the work, but over time...over time. Nothing wrong with a field that has produced no fruit, when it was sown yesterday...The season comes when abundant harvest shows the fruit of the seed, the WORD, that was planted. I have faith...because the word is implanted. I understand seasons...seed time/harvest. Not the same times.
I don't recall seeing husbandry lessons with the mustard seed. Just IF you had faith the size of a mustard seed, THEN....
Nope. Not size...and that's why that translation is so spurious. You end up missing the husbandry lessons: The seed gets planted. Day comes and also the night...and the seed grows without your help. Jesus taught that too. "The Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field; which indeed is smaller than all seeds but when it is grown, it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in its branches." No help from you...Just good soil. There is no point where this man does not have enough plant...but the mustard is useless to the birds for a very long time, until they find home in it.

So now there is some translational stuff that doesn't fall in the "ubiquitous understanding" of the mustard seed that says that we had to.... No, Jesus said what he said clearly. IF....THEN.
Where did I say we are "always wrong?" I don't recall saying that ever. I don't see it here.
I said something closer to this. Only I left out "could" and said we are. At times. But that nobody -- no group -- is right. We are all wrong.
Sometimes...and not always. That's my point. Hope it's yours. It's better in my classroom to point out how often my kids are right than to continually point out how often they are wrong.
You should get a picture in your head of Dr. Wallace and repeat the bolded phrase above until you can apologize for what you did to his words, and thus to him.
Um...I did nothing to "his words". I rejected the only measure of "his words" you felt willing to repeat. An argument from historic error is a specious argument. Those, he admits, are not his words. He even said "'of God' is possible, but..." the ubiquitous error wins. The ubiquity of error does not convince me of its validity. Why would I apologize to that. I've not read Dr. Wallace or any of his words.
We are wrong, mostly.
Disagree. We are taught of God.
We were built that way. We are sinners, not because we sin, but because we were built that way. If this were not true -- if we are sinners because we sin -- then show me one human who is not also God that is sinless.
It's important to believe in God. He's got the details. We should simply let the Spirit teach us and we should learn. Should. Until he lies and kills our wives. Then you simply don't want to play the game any longer (except that you mysteriously find yourself on forums defending the truth of his Word - funny about that).
Everything is funny until it is not any more.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
I know only pain.
You brought up and kept pounding the love and work. I even altered Acts for you and you skipped right over it.
It was silly. Absurdam rarely requires comment.

As far as that guy, he made no allusion to "obedience to God's Law." And what are these rituals that you speak of? Do tell.
Your anecdote proves nothing... He'll appear before Christ's judgment, where this argument will be decided. That's a scary thought most of the time.
Aaaaaaand once again Pete knows more than the experts of a subject. Go study it, Pete. There are dialects. Major languages have them. If the language spreads out too far then people begin to change it for their purposes. In this case, it is still French, but it is a French dialect. Different from the official, but still understood to be French. I'm sorry that you are too proud to see this, but it is true. Research it.
"There's no precise definition of dialect (or language for that matter). All you need to know is that there are systematic differences in pronunciation, morphology, syntax and lexicon between the English used in the United States and United Kingdom."


Bottom line. This is a waste of time. It was fun until it wasn't any more. It's far more important to highlight my ignorance rather than understand what I'm trying to say.

I'm ignorant. I'm content. God's strength is made perfect in weakness.

Carry on.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
It was silly. Absurdam rarely requires comment.

Your anecdote proves nothing... He'll appear before Christ's judgment, where this argument will be decided. That's a scary thought most of the time.

"There's no precise definition of dialect (or language for that matter). All you need to know is that there are systematic differences in pronunciation, morphology, syntax and lexicon between the English used in the United States and United Kingdom."


Bottom line. This is a waste of time. It was fun until it wasn't any more. It's far more important to highlight my ignorance rather than understand what I'm trying to say.

I'm ignorant. I'm content. God's strength is made perfect in weakness.

Carry on.

So farting is over with?

Don't take that as a joke .
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
I'm just leaving these here...I'm not under the illusion that you'll answer without accusing me of absurdity. How the fat is anyone supposed to answer a question like that? What are you looking for in an answer?

Name the last three times you've admitted you were wrong. :eek:
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Lola Isca is 124 years old today..., not wof. 🤔
Happy birthday Lola. In tongues: Bon anniversaire. Feliz compléaño. Grattis på födelsedagen. These are tongues/languages, btw. You can also call them dialects.

Always glad when you make my point, Ted. Could not have expected more.
 
Last edited:

BlessedAnomaly

Well-known member
You find this equivocating? "To use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself."
Yes. The statement that I responded to. Not some case you want to expand it to below. The response you made that I responded to. Begins and ends with what I quoted because that was a complete response, a complete post.

The question asked of you by Mik required a simple yes or no, followed by explanation if you desire. You did not answer the question but went on a quizzically humorous spiel. Realize that you may understand your words and meaning, but as responded, it is mysterious as to why you would answer a yes/no as such.

I'm asked, "Do you infallibly interpret Scripture?"
I answered: Help me...."Not without your help." I am implying that that is the goal, but I mention that this should be of all of us our goal. I assume you believe you are correctly interpreting Scripture.

Watch and see. "We read each others posts." When you see me err, I trust you will point it out.

Feel free to point out where I fail. "I'm open to correction." It's clear that I expect to err at some point, and I will examine your analysis.

That's how we help each other! And thanks for asking! "This is what fellowship and iron sharpening iron is all about."

I am truly sorry that you found this ambiguous. After twenty years here, not to see that I have been corrected, and have also been correct despite well-intentioned albeit erroneous "correction" reveals more about you than it does about me.
More ad homs, eh? :rolleyes:
 

BlessedAnomaly

Well-known member
And as far as grammar goes, Bob. There is no such thing a "far far far, etc." You can only go so far.
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: Touché.

The genitive case has a limited, finite number of uses..."in God" in this case would normally include the preposition "eis," "in", and the sentence would say, "Exete pistin eis ton Theon," only with the Greek letters I am too lazy to reproduce. That was the point Marios the neophyte was making as well. It's not exceptional talent, wisdom or understanding that produces this statement. It's a smattering of basic Greek grammar...in fact...a smattering of linguistics, because in languages where there are cases, like Latin and German, these situations present themselves early in discovery. And your friend acquiesced to the possibility and went with the "ubiquitous interpretation." And THAT is precisely why this discussion is so important, and when it is forced into the domain of ad hominem and cantankerous acrimony, the resultant blather obfuscates the FACT that Jesus is intentionally inviting us to HIS level of performance.
Why are you going on and on about "in"? (vs "of"). I made the argument for "of" way back when. I'm the one who sought out Dr. Wallace on the issue and proved "of" was actually correct. What do you think I believe?
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Yes. The statement that I responded to. Not some case you want to expand it to below. The response you made that I responded to. Begins and ends with what I quoted because that was a complete response, a complete post.

The question asked of you by Mik required a simple yes or no, followed by explanation if you desire. You did not answer the question but went on a quizzically humorous spiel. Realize that you may understand your words and meaning, but as responded, it is mysterious as to why you would answer a yes/no as such.
Do you infallibly interpret Scripture?

(Just a heads up...because, this is a conversation for me, and not a quest for the knock out punch, like most normal people, I'm going to want you to expound. I will actually be interested in your response, and not place limits. A monosyllabic grunt of affirmation or denial will not be adequate to meet the goal of an affable conversation.)

More ad homs, eh? :rolleyes:
Where? WTH did I miss? When I say "I'm going to need your help, because the goal is to get it right," you find an ad hom?

You all mystify me. You need to grow up and put some WoF in you. :eek:
 
Last edited:

tbeachhead

Well-known member
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: Touché.


Why are you going on and on about "in"? (vs "of"). I made the argument for "of" way back when. I'm the one who sought out Dr. Wallace on the issue and proved "of" was actually correct. What do you think I believe?
What Jesus is revealing hinges on that preposition. Maybe you've missed my point each time I point that out? Why is it you cannot ever respond to the point I'm making...which is so simple it is one step short of the very first "far" of all the "fars" you were laying on your scholar-gods. It is not even linguistic-rocket science.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Yes, by the second definition in the Oxford dictionary.
:rolleyes: You're equivocating. "That never fails; always doing what it is supposed to do." That definition doesn't even respond to what Mik was asking.

And when you plug "inffallibly" into the dictionary, Oxford kicks out: "without ever being wrong, making a mistake or failing." To be honest, this is what Mik was asking. So...to help you in your endeavor to eschew equivocation: Do you interpret scripture "without ever being wrong, making a mistake or failing?"

And, to keep it in the decades-old context of this board, Do you believe Bob's "ubiquitous scholars", i.e. your own "orthodoxy", interpret scripture "without ever being wrong, making a mistake or failing," despite the ubiquity of the error? That will relieve you from the responsibility of having to make a personal claim in the matter. That's important, to have someone else to blame.
 
Top