wof and living 120 years

BlessedAnomaly

Well-known member
Do you infallibly interpret Scripture?
No.

In fact I do not try to "interpret" scripture because I do not speak the original languages that they were written in. I rely on brighter men than you or I (note that I included you here) to interpret scripture. And guess what? They may not have interpreted it infallibly either, which is why many of them have discussions about parts of scripture to determine meaning. Such interpretation and discussion continues on into today and will likely continue into tomorrow and the days beyond.

But to the best of their ability they interpret and translate scripture for us to try and understand. We should lean on them and rely on their input into our understanding. I lean on them. When I find the things I find that started my whole return here on CARM, I didn't make up a new theology, go off and start a new movement, and then return here and proclaim its superiority over the lands. No. I came and laid out what I saw and what I thought it meant. I asked for comment, correction or agreement. Mostly what I got was teaching from the wrong side of the tree. But then I got round about agreement in some sense. And while having these discussions, certain things came up that gave me fodder for internet searches and I was able to find Piper saying basically the same thing. So in that, at least I had my agreement from someone who, well, should know a lot more than you and I do (note that I included you here).

(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.)
You are normal people, Pete. You try to present yourself as not, but your actions show just how normal you are.

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:
Pete said:

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.​
FIrst, I found nothing there ambiguous. You didn't answer his question. You went on a diatribe to describe and answer, a yes or no. There is a difference.

Second, your accusation that there is a revelation here is a direct ad hominem. Something was revealed about me and from the context I'm sure it was not good. That's disparagement. That is an attack upon myself and not what I said.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Well-known member
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.
I asked "what do you think I believe?"

Nowhere in your response is an answer to that question. Over and over you ignore what people ask and say, going on your own rants and bunny trails simply to hear yourself talk (or see yourself read??). "Have faith of God." Clearly. It's even what Wallace said, but you got stuck on "ubiquitous." This word even became the backhand slap in a couple more of your posts.

You're wound up too tight, Pete. Oh, but you know French so you can linguistically go toe to toe with a Greek scholar who is reading Greek while you reference BibleHub. smh
 

BlessedAnomaly

Well-known member
: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.
From where I'm sitting, you asked a question. Ted unequivocally answered: Yes. Then he expounded on that answer like you asked me to do in another post. Why if Ted follows your requested format is it equivocating? You just wanted to use the word back against him ("knock out punch"). Sorry, it didn't work.

Secondly, the infallibility of scripture is God's ability to get what he wants done in the reader's life and understanding. So my interpretation, however you describe it, will produce the infallible results that God desires. So is my interpretation infallible? Well my interpretation forms my understanding; God will use that to infallibly move me in the way that he wants to. My interpretation will be infallible to understand salvation, faith, and it will not fail to accomplish the purpose set forth by God in the words of scripture. So maybe I'll have to change my answer from another post. Maybe.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
No.

In fact I do not try to "interpret" scripture because I do not speak the original languages that they were written in. I rely on brighter men than you or I (note that I included you here) to interpret scripture. And guess what? They may not have interpreted it infallibly either, which is why many of them have discussions about parts of scripture to determine meaning. Such interpretation and discussion continues on into today and will likely continue into tomorrow and the days beyond.
Wow.

I thought you were brighter.

There is no point in answering your accusations, Bob. This is going nowhere.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
From where I'm sitting, you asked a question. Ted unequivocally answered: Yes. Then he expounded on that answer like you asked me to do in another post.
He obfuscated. Without directly quoting the definition to demonstrate his meaning, he cited "the second definition" from Oxford...I had to look it up, and guess which "Oxford" he was using...Then I went to the adverb. "infallibly" which only had ONE definition, and I quoted that directly.

The second definition that I found was for the adjective "infallible" and so I quoted it so anyone reading could see without having to do the same search; and that definition was not only ambiguous in the context of this discussion, but incomprehensible.

Do you need to see the definition of equivocation?

I'm glad he satisfied your requirements. I was trying to understand what he was talking about, and actually sought out the Oxford dictionary.


Why if Ted follows your requested format is it equivocating? You just wanted to use the word back against him ("knock out punch"). Sorry, it didn't work.
He's "using ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing himself." Lessons in deliberate equivocation. When he says, "...according to the second definition in the Oxford English Dictionary..." he's defined the term "equivocate". The only definition of "infallibly" in that dictionary is "...incapable of error." I also quoted that.

When you want to address the points I'm making, let me know.

Secondly, the infallibility of scripture is God's ability to get what he wants done in the reader's life and understanding. So my interpretation, however you describe it, will produce the infallible results that God desires. So is my interpretation infallible? Well my interpretation forms my understanding; God will use that to infallibly move me in the way that he wants to. My interpretation will be infallible to understand salvation, faith, and it will not fail to accomplish the purpose set forth by God in the words of scripture. So maybe I'll have to change my answer from another post. Maybe.
It's fun to watch you interpret stuff without any "brighter" chums to rely on. If I'd said all this, do you suppose we could have had a normal conversation, where warmth and friendship highlighted our responses?
 
Last edited:

tbeachhead

Well-known member
I asked "what do you think I believe?"

Nowhere in your response is an answer to that question.
Look at the question. How many pages do you want? And what would be the point? This is a tactic of the critics. I know as little of you as your attack posts reveal. And that's purposeful.

You have said here that you believe that to be WoF, you have to be a disciple of Hagin/Copeland, and that without Hagin/Copeland, WoF fails. That WoF is not a framework for systematic hermeneutics, but a fallacy riddled sham that has no value whatsoever but for the purpose of fomenting disdain and division.

And my answer was, "I don't care because what you believe has nothing to do with the basic principles of Word of Faith doctrine.

Over and over you ignore what people ask and say, going on your own rants and bunny trails simply to hear yourself talk (or see yourself read??). "Have faith of God." Clearly. It's even what Wallace said, but you got stuck on "ubiquitous." This word even became the backhand slap in a couple more of your posts.

You're wound up too tight, Pete. Oh, but you know French so you can linguistically go toe to toe with a Greek scholar who is reading Greek while you reference BibleHub. smh
I'm wound up too tight? This is a rant, Bob.

You keep running back to "BibleHub" which I referenced for your sake? Your much more intelligent Bible Scholar god actually admitted the possible reading we're discussing, and dismissed it for the "ubiquitous" choice. That was a choice. He had no other reason. The Greek language, and the meaning of its cases have not changed enough for you to be able to dismiss the ability of a Greek speaker to read it. And you do.

That's not my problem, even though you want to make it my problem. You have not studied Greek, nor read the pages after pages of discussion of the genitive that make up a Graduate level class on Greek exegesis.

But...you're qualified to judge my ability. Be the judge. I'll let the Lord judge between you and me.
 

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
Wow.

I thought you were brighter.

There is no point in answering your accusations, Bob. This is going nowhere.

It is sad how you have turned on a hurting brother the way you have done... It goes to show your bias and narrowness of thought. Personal insults aren't just for Ted and me... Just disagree with the Great Oak and you will get some splinters...

Pete, I want to be very clear here. Your word-smith attacks are well noted. Bob was on your "Team" for 15-17 years... Now that he disagrees with you, the personal attacks and insults have risen up by your keyboard...

You're a gem....
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
More ad hominem.
Why? Now I'm convinced that you don't even read your own posts. As long as you can attack me, the rest is useless...You said, "I rely on brighter men than you or I." I said, "I thought you were brighter than this." You rely on men for enlightenment. That's not bright, Bob...or humble. It's not even biblical or advisable.

I'm done.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Well-known member
He obfuscated. Without directly quoting the definition to demonstrate his meaning, he cited "the second definition" from Oxford...I had to look it up, and guess which "Oxford" he was using...Then I went to the adverb. "infallibly" which only had ONE definition, and I quoted that directly.

The second definition that I found was for the adjective "infallible" and so I quoted it so anyone reading could see without having to do the same search; and that definition was not only ambiguous in the context of this discussion, but incomprehensible.

Do you need to see the definition of equivocation?
No, I'm more wishing that instead of accusing you might just ask: "could you write the definition you are using from the Oxford? I find many and it is ambiguous to me. Thanks."

I'm glad he satisfied your requirements. I was trying to understand what he was talking about, and actually sought out the Oxford dictionary.
I didn't say he satisfied me. I don't know which Oxford definition he is using either. But he was answering you. It's your ball.

He's "using ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing himself." Lessons in deliberate equivocation. When he says, "...according to the second definition in the Oxford English Dictionary..." he's defined the term "equivocate". The only definition of "infallibly" in that dictionary is "...incapable of error." I also quoted that.

When you want to address the points I'm making, let me know.
His answer was ambiguous. It was not equivocation. For you to take your found definition and read anything after the word "ambiguous" into Ted's meaning is disingenuous on your part. It is disparaging. And it is Cleo.
Ask another flippin' question.

And if you think such discourse is "tooth-pulling" then DON'T GET INTO the discussion with him in the first place. But you consistently return to him. You either like the discourse or you like the pain.

It's fun to watch you interpret stuff without any "brighter" chums to rely on. If I'd said all this, do you suppose we could have had a normal conversation, where warmth and friendship highlighted our responses?
Thank you for yet another veiled ad hom. As far as the question: not if I disagreed with you in the least. You don't like that even as you say you are here for learning and teaching, correction and to correct. No. You are here to persuade people that Word of Faith is now defined by Pete and we need to learn the new rules.

Now, look closely there. I didn't call you "less bright." I didn't disparage your name. I simply pointed out what I see: you have redirected what Word of Faith is and dismissed many of the major teachers of the message. It appears to now be yours to define. This is not an ad hom. This is an observation (which has the right to be wrong, perchance).

To that note. Be warm and I can be warm. Tell an untruth and I will correct you. My correction could be wrong, but it will be right to my understanding, just as your disagreement to my correction could be wrong, but will be right to your understanding. I have been, and always shall be, your friend (insert Vulcan hand symbol 🖖 on the glass). Live long and prosper (paraphrase, 3 John 2). To clarify: when my friend is wrong and in trouble, I try to help, but sometimes that help is tough love. It hurts.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
It is sad how you have turned on a hurting brother the way you have done... It goes to show your bias and narrowness of thought. Personal insults aren't just for Ted and me... Just disagree with the Great Oak and you will get some splinters...
This is an asinine comment. I have not "turned on Bob." He's turned on me and made a mockery of every attempt to communicate.

I'm sure you've not read anything I've written...and that you would echo every single ad hom Bob's leveling against me ("He's got your MO." as you quipped to Mik.)

The only way you have to communicate is to turn every post into a personal affront.
Pete, I want to be very clear here. Your word-smith attacks are well noted. Bob was on your "Team" for 15-17 years... Now that he disagrees with you, the personal attacks and insults have risen up by your keyboard...

You're a gem....
"Wordsmith attacks?" You guys really want an echo chamber here...
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
No, I'm more wishing that instead of accusing you might just ask: "could you write the definition you are using from the Oxford? I find many and it is ambiguous to me. Thanks."
How about: "Thank you for accusing me of equivocation, and suggesting that you're using a dictionary without clarifying what the definition says, when you answer my question equivocally." How's that?

I should appreciate every ad hom from you guys. BTW...thank you so much for this suggestion. I'm sure Ted would gladly clarify.
I didn't say he satisfied me. I don't know which Oxford definition he is using either. But he was answering you. It's your ball.
I apologize profusely. You "didn't say, 'He satisfied me.'" You said, "From where I'm sitting, you asked a question. Ted unequivocally answered: Yes. Then he expounded on that answer like you asked me to do in another post." I'm sorry that I saw in your response satisfaction with his answer. When you suggested that he answered "unequivocally", I really should have said, "Oh. I see. Yes...you're so much brighter than I, I shall rely on your view.
His answer was ambiguous. It was not equivocation.
Equivocation: "the use of ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself." I still have no idea what he meant...and neither do you...and he has avoided committing himself. Make up your own word for it...but do not by any means believe that I know English. I'm unqualified to speak it or know it. I need someone brighter than I to explain the language to me.

For you to take your found definition and read anything after the word "ambiguous" into Ted's meaning is disingenuous on your part. It is disparaging. And it is Cleo.
This is bizarre on the threshold of the Twilight Zone. What the fat is "my found definition?"
Ask another flippin' question.
OK...What is your problem? How have you become incapable of civil discourse?

And if you think such discourse is "tooth-pulling" then DON'T GET INTO the discussion with him in the first place. But you consistently return to him. You either like the discourse or you like the pain.
Echo chamber here we come. You guys will like that.

Thank you for yet another veiled ad hom.
This is not a "veiled ad hom." This is in response to your suggesting that you do not interpret scripture, but rely on brighter folks to do that for you. You do interpret scripture, and you have done a reasonably good job...and you've taken to spewing nonsense with me for some reason that is baffling me.

0 As far as the question: not if I disagreed with you in the least. You don't like that even as you say you are here for learning and teaching, correction and to correct. No. You are here to persuade people that Word of Faith is now defined by Pete and we need to learn the new rules.
OK....Cleo.


Now, look closely there. I didn't call you "less bright." I didn't disparage your name. I simply pointed out what I see: you have redirected what Word of Faith is and dismissed many of the major teachers of the message. It appears to now be yours to define. This is not an ad hom. This is an observation (which has the right to be wrong, perchance).
And you, on the other hand, have turned this board into an ad hominem attack on a select group of hated televangelists, so that anyone who is not them should not be mentioned on this board.

This is not an ad hom . This is likewise an observation...I have never "dismissed the major teachers of the message". I've dismissed their jets and focused on the message. For you it's solely them and their jets. The message will outlast them...and it will certainly outlast their jets. Focus on it, and we can still the echoes.

To that note. Be warm and I can be warm. Tell an untruth and I will correct you. My correction could be wrong, but it will be right to my understanding, just as your disagreement to my correction could be wrong, but will be right to your understanding. I have been, and always shall be, your friend (insert Vulcan hand symbol 🖖 on the glass). Live long and prosper (paraphrase, 3 John 2). To clarify: when my friend is wrong and in trouble, I try to help, but sometimes that help is tough love. It hurts.
This is getting bi-polar for me...All of this can be purged of acrimony and become enjoyable. The issues are more important daily, as the Day approaches.
 

Tallen

Well-known member
It takes a few years. :eek: David Yonghi Cho just passed away at 85. South Korea's best answer to WoF.
In other words..., an 80 year old wof from 40 years ago hasn't made it to 120? No examples of 120 year wof even though it's been popular to "confess" it since the late 1970's?

I thought Cho wasn't wof..., according to wof in the forum when he was brought up years ago. Just like Hinn. 😆
 
Top