On 22/05/2024 10:31 am, ChristRose wrote:
> ========================
> On Tue, 21 May 2024 14:50:13 -0700,
> Article:<0001HW.2BFD4E95001209FB30A35038F@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Envy-boy Robert wrote:
> ========================
>
> See explanation below for the subject
> change.
>
>> On May 21, 2024, ChristRose wrote
>> (in article<_q-cnX-aWJ-2m9D7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>):
>>
>>> On 5/21/2024 2:39 PM, Robert wrote:
>>>> On May 21, 2024, ChristRose wrote
>>>> (in article<ur9p4jprngbfl3reg5iapq7c5nn4ilhuq8@christrose.news>):
>>>>
>>>>> ========================
>>>>> On Mon, 20 May 2024 20:41:34 -0700,
>>>>> Article:<0001HW.2BFC4F6E002A0662306FF438F@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>> Robert wrote:
>>>>> ========================
>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 20, 2024, ChristRose wrote
>>>>>> (in article<ih0n4j1bukv2vrslhc5qglgibropds9t24@christrose.news>):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ========================
>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 May 2024 09:21:33 -0700,
>>>>>>> Article:<0001HW.2BFBB00D0004ABAF306FF438F@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>>>> Robert wrote:
>>>>>>> ========================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 19, 2024, ChristRose wrote
>>>>>>>> (in article<ngml4j52qfir6elpg2cka4cqinumn1agf7@christrose.news>):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ========================
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 May 2024 21:49:31 -0700,
>>>>>>>>> Article:<0001HW.2BFB0DDB002E24FD30636438F@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>> Robert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ========================
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 19, 2024, ChristRose wrote
>>>>>>>>>> (in article<mdel4jdis7k3aiv9cuutb51sbar41v6etb@christrose.news>):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ========================
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 May 2024 18:02:20 -0700,
>>>>>>>>>>> Article:<0001HW.2BFAD89C0021AA3130636438F@news.eternal-september.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>>>>> Robert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ========================
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 19, 2024, ChristRose wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> (in article<4g0k4jlmmockpqftmigsirlpq7pgva1j61@christrose.news>):
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> See this article, with images, on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://christrose.news/commands.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lately, I've been using the imperative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tool on Logos. It allows you to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> immediately identify all the imperatives
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a given text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, when you just look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> text of a regular translation, some of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the imperatives can be hidden:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> “And a multitude was sitting around Him;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and they said to Him, “Look, Your mother
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Your brothers are outside seeking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You.” But He answered them, saying, “Who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is My mother, or My brothers?” And He
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked around in a circle at those who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sat about Him, and said, “Here are My
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mother and My brothers! For whoever does
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the will of God is My brother and My
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sister and mother.”” (Mark 3:32–35,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NKJV)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The NKJV correctly shows the imperative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Mark 3:32 "LOOK [imperative], Your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mother and Your brothers are outside
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeking You" (emphasis mine).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, in verse 34, it translates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jesus' response as "HERE are My mother
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and My brothers!" (emphasis mine).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That word "Here" is actually an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> imperative verb, meaning, "Look!". So
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the disciples were saying, "Look" at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your relatives. But Jesus responded,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Look", these are my relatives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Had you been using the KJV you would have seen that both words were
>>>>>>>>>>>> translated, “behold”.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I was aware of that. It also shows
>>>>>>>>>>> whether Jesus was talking to one
>>>>>>>>>>> individual ("you") or the whole group of
>>>>>>>>>>> people ("ye"). However, not many people
>>>>>>>>>>> speak KJV these days.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The spirit of the Lord would have guided you into the understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes using various means.
>>>>>>>>>>>> However, in regards to LOGOS, it has become a “universal” tool
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> religions and cults regarding the Holy Bible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with this kind of sweeping
>>>>>>>>>>> condemnation, is it that it would
>>>>>>>>>>> ultimately mean that anything that can
>>>>>>>>>>> be used for evil can only be evil.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As an analogy, every day for the past 20
>>>>>>>>> or more years, you have been posting in
>>>>>>>>> this and other groups, where the content
>>>>>>>>> that is in the group consists largely of
>>>>>>>>> teachings which you deem to fail the
>>>>>>>>> test of the spirits.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You haven’t been here for 20 years, so you do not know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How much do you want to bet? Remember
>>>>>>> Oldwetdog (Glen), Diana, Feather, and
>>>>>>> Vera6? Remember "Pastor Dave" the
>>>>>>> Preterist? Yeah. I remember them, and
>>>>>>> can tell you about them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will bet you a bunch. You already admitted to being run off the Net for
>>>>>> years.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've already admitted to posting here
>>>>> for more than 20 years. Your standard of
>>>>> guilt by association implies that if
>>>>> someone even uses the same word that
>>>>> pagans used 2000 years ago (e.g.
>>>>> "incarnation"), then his teaching is
>>>>> automatically tarnished and incorrect,
>>>>> by mere association with how pagans and
>>>>> heretics used the word, even though he's
>>>>> not using it in the same sense, but in a
>>>>> sense which is consistent with the
>>>>> teachings of Scripture.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or again, you try to imply that any
>>>>> content which comes out of Logos is
>>>>> suspect or tarnished, merely because
>>>>> it's possible to buy content which is
>>>>> not sound for Logos, whether that
>>>>> content was ever actually used in Logos
>>>>> or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet you admit to using for more than 20
>>>>> years, the same media (e.g. ACC) to post
>>>>> your content as those you deem are
>>>>> heretics and Satanic. But automagically,
>>>>> your content doesn't become contaminated
>>>>> by association with their use of the
>>>>> same media for evil purposes.
>>>>
>>>> Again a false allegation and supposition.
>>>>
>>>> You failed to address YOUR BET, emphasis yours, that I took you up on.
>>>> Where is Your proof?
>>>> Especially given that you said I posted with all your false allegations and
>>>> accusations.
>>>> Where is your proof of those things? I have already denied it all, other
>>>> than
>>>> I have posted on the Usenet since its beginning.
>>>>
>>>> Therefor cough it up or be well known as a Liar. Thus a tool of satan.
>>>
>>> I responded in the context below. You
>>> ignored 90% of it. Your narrative
>>> doesn't work well when the context is
>>> included.
>>
>> I just scanned the following test, there are no copies of any text posted by
>> me showing any proof of what I posted that fit your ’narrative’, IOW’s
>> lies
>>
>> I saw no reason to read the rest
>
>
> Of course you don't. Responding in
> context would ruin your narrative.
>
>
>> since you based your lying opinions on what
>> you wrote above, and you cannot snd did not support your bet. And a quick
>> scan shows no verifiable posts from me from 29 years ago.
>
>
> idem.
>
>
>> BTW, Imperatives are not commands.
>
>
> Says who? Where are your sources for
> that? I showed three Greek sources which
> indicates they are "normally" commands
> (citation below). If they are normally
> commands, then telling people that you
> can unlock Bible commands (i.e. see the
> commands when they are not directly
> evident in English) by using an
> Imperative tool on Logos, is accurate.
>
> Oh wait. That's right. You already
> admitted you didn't read the rest of the
> post. Actual context ruins your
> narrative, envy-boy.
>
> Now we have to scroll down for 100 years
> to get through all the context envy-boy
> Robert had to ignore to support his
> narrative:
>
>
>
>>>>>>>> You have not read what I wrote for 20 years,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I never claimed to know or have read
>>>>>>> everything you wrote over the last 20
>>>>>>> years. I claimed you have been posting
>>>>>>> here for 20 plus years. You just
>>>>>>> confirmed it and claimed it was even
>>>>>>> longer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, much longer in fact. I never denied it. I have been online longer
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> many people have been alive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which shows you'll argue against
>>>>> something even after you admit it was
>>>>> correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore, you have been using for 20
>>>>>>> plus years, a group which you know is
>>>>>>> filled with content which you claim
>>>>>>> fails the "test the spirits"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is your false claim and association.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're claiming now that you actually
>>>>> agreed with the content being posted by
>>>>> the atheists and Catholics? Or is it
>>>>> just that you've been condemning their
>>>>> content much longer than I originally
>>>>> gave you credit for?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> exhortation. Your standard of guilt by
>>>>>>> association requires that anything you
>>>>>>> post in here must also be from Satan,
>>>>>>> because that's what you concluded other
>>>>>>> people post in this group. That's your
>>>>>>> standard. Own it or admit you're a
>>>>>>> hypocrite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have been in the process of manufacture that idea not ever since I
>>>>>> cautioned you about LOGOS. Not you are on some demented trip of creating
>>>>>> false witness.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've routinely implied my content is
>>>>> coming from Satan, even when I'm telling
>>>>> people Christ died for their sins and
>>>>> God raised Him from the dead, simply
>>>>> because I used AI in the process of
>>>>> preparing the content. --Not because you
>>>>> could actually, convincingly show the
>>>>> content to be inconsistent with the
>>>>> teachings of Scripture mind you, but by
>>>>> mere association.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've routinely implied that the use of
>>>>> the word "incarnation" is carnal, not
>>>>> based of how it is currently being
>>>>> understood and used, but because you
>>>>> found that 2000 years ago, pagans used
>>>>> it to mean something carnal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now in this thread, you're implying that
>>>>> content which comes from Logos is
>>>>> suspect or contaminated, merely because
>>>>> they sell content for Catholics and
>>>>> such, as if everyone who uses Logos is
>>>>> using only the sources which you deem to
>>>>> be evil.
>>>>>
>>>>> You do this constantly. When you can't
>>>>> refute the actual content, you try to
>>>>> poison people's minds against it by
>>>>> association. Yet you never apply the
>>>>> same standard to yourself, or notice
>>>>> your own hypocrisy.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) None of your English words you use to
>>>>> explain what you understand the Bible to
>>>>> teach, are found in the copies of the
>>>>> original languages of the Bible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet if you find someone using a single
>>>>> word that you don't find in a
>>>>> word-search of your English versions,
>>>>> you grand-stand about how their teaching
>>>>> is foreign to the Bible and therefore
>>>>> not taught in the Bible and contrary to
>>>>> the Bible.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) The Holy Spirit regularly inspired
>>>>> the writers of the New Testament to use
>>>>> the same exact words to describe the one
>>>>> true God (e.g. "theos"), as the pagans
>>>>> of the day were currently using to
>>>>> describe their false, pagan gods. Yet if
>>>>> someone uses the word "incarnation" in
>>>>> the framework of the commonly
>>>>> understood, Christian use of the word
>>>>> which is consistent with the Bible, you
>>>>> act like the word is still contaminated
>>>>> by the fact that 2000 years ago, pagans
>>>>> used it to mean evil things.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) You use the same source to post your
>>>>> content as the atheists (e.g.
>>>>> alt.atheism, ACC), yet your content
>>>>> remains pure and not contaminated by you
>>>>> using the same source for publishing as
>>>>> they do. But if someone uses Logos to
>>>>> publish content, why their content is
>>>>> suspect and contaminated, because Logos
>>>>> also publishes content from Catholics
>>>>> and others you deem heretical.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're such a shameless, brazen,
>>>>> hypocrite.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and I have posted for far more years than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> ***applause***
>>>>>
>>>>> The purpose wasn't to give you an award
>>>>> for posting in here for 20 years, but to
>>>>> demonstrate what a hypocrite you are.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first post in this group is dated
>>>>>>> around 2003, so you can't have been in
>>>>>>> this particular group more than about 21
>>>>>>> years. I began using Usenet in 95 or 96,
>>>>>>> but didn't come to this group till
>>>>>>> around 2004 or 2005. I remember you, but
>>>>>>> didn't interact with you much. What I do
>>>>>>> remember was you were still pushing
>>>>>>> Charismatic/Pentecostal views in nearly
>>>>>>> every discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christnet as been around since 1994.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I'm mistaken about the date the group
>>>>> began, and it was before 2003, this only
>>>>> strengthens the point. You've been using
>>>>> the same media for posting your content
>>>>> as the people you rail on for being
>>>>> heretics and atheists for even LONGER
>>>>> than I originally thought.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Show proof of your claim or be known as a Liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proof of what? That you've been using
>>>>> the same media to publish your content
>>>>> as those you deem atheists and heretics?
>>>>> You've admitted it, and taken credit for
>>>>> doing it even longer than I originally
>>>>> thought.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I can call you one right
>>>>>> know, as I know what I did. But I won’t, I will allow you the privilege
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> state that you have no proof and cannot find any such proof, as I pushed
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> such proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I'm mistaken about, when you actually
>>>>> began pushing your
>>>>> charismatic/Pentecostal views, then when
>>>>> do you claim it actually began?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When a person replies to cross posted posts the replies of to all linked
>>>>>>>> NG’s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the other groups are also filled
>>>>>>> with similar content which you routinely
>>>>>>> indicate fails the "test the spirits"
>>>>>>> test, you're just making the point
>>>>>>> stronger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where is the proof of you claims?
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh....in the headers of your posts,
>>>>> which show the groups you're posting to,
>>>>> and in the content of those posts? How
>>>>> many posts do you want me to show of you
>>>>> using alt.atheism to publish your
>>>>> content? How many posts do you want me
>>>>> to show of you contending that these
>>>>> people are publishing evil ideas?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let the reader understand, this is
>>>>> ROBERT'S standard, not mine. I don't
>>>>> believe someone's writing becomes
>>>>> contaminated, simply because he used AI
>>>>> or ACC, or Logos to publish the content.
>>>>> Each content should be evaluated on the
>>>>> basis of whether or not it is consistent
>>>>> with Scripture. Robert wants to condemn
>>>>> everyone else's content based on these
>>>>> hypocritical standards he invented, but
>>>>> which he does not live by.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just chock full of accusations. Lies, innuendoes.
>>>>>> You are a total fraud.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because I made the mistake of noticing
>>>>> that you use the same media to publish
>>>>> your content as the atheists use to
>>>>> publish their content? Yet your content
>>>>> isn't contaminated by that, but mine is
>>>>> if I use Logos?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your guilt by association standard
>>>>>>> requires that if others use a group to
>>>>>>> post content which fails the test, then
>>>>>>> everyone who posts to that group is
>>>>>>> automatically guilty by association of
>>>>>>> the worst things which are posted into
>>>>>>> those groups. That's effectively what
>>>>>>> you're saying here, is that if other
>>>>>>> people load bad commentaries into their
>>>>>>> Logos, then everyone who uses Logos is
>>>>>>> posting bad content. How dumb is that?
>>>>>>> Own your own standard, or stop being a
>>>>>>> hypocrite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yet you don't quit using the group
>>>>>>>>> simply because it is possible for it to
>>>>>>>>> contain so much bad content. You don't
>>>>>>>>> conclude that any and all content which
>>>>>>>>> is posted in the group must therefore be
>>>>>>>>> evil, contaminated, and Satanic content,
>>>>>>>>> by mere association.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you best get off the Net, hypocrite, as where you post is full of
>>>>>>>> lies,
>>>>>>>> errors, hatred, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't operate by the self-evidently
>>>>>>> dumb and hypocritical standards by which
>>>>>>> you try to poison people's minds against
>>>>>>> anything you didn't write. You do. You
>>>>>>> need to start applying your own
>>>>>>> standards of condemnation by association
>>>>>>> to your own content.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If me loading up Logos with good
>>>>>>> commentaries and publishing truth (which
>>>>>>> you cannot convincingly refute as being
>>>>>>> contrary to Scripture) becomes evil,
>>>>>>> simply because other people load their
>>>>>>> Logos up with bad content), then
>>>>>>> anything you post when you use these
>>>>>>> groups has to be just as evil as the
>>>>>>> worst things posted in the groups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Instead, you keep right on using the
>>>>>>>>> same group to post your articles,
>>>>>>>>> believing the content you make is not
>>>>>>>>> obligated to be Satanic and evil, just
>>>>>>>>> because someone else uses the same group
>>>>>>>>> to promote evil content which fails the
>>>>>>>>> test of the spirits.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yet here you are, hypocrite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not the one promoting your standard
>>>>>>> of condemnation by mere association. You
>>>>>>> are. I believe someone who uses this
>>>>>>> group can post something edifying here,
>>>>>>> even if others use the group to post
>>>>>>> content which fails the "test the
>>>>>>> spirits" test. Your standard requires
>>>>>>> that if others use it for evil, then
>>>>>>> everyone who uses it must also be
>>>>>>> promoting evil. Of course, you only
>>>>>>> apply that standard to others, not
>>>>>>> yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do think that God said to “try the spirits”?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Exactly. Where did you test and
>>>>>>>>> demonstrate (based on the resources I
>>>>>>>>> loaded into Logos) that the words Logos
>>>>>>>>> marked as imperatives in my article, are
>>>>>>>>> in fact not imperatives, but actually
>>>>>>>>> clever and deceitful lies from Satan,
>>>>>>>>> designed to lead people astray from God?
>>>>>>>>> No where.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> False accusation. You said that you used them, learned from them, and
>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> this thread you attempt to teach others using their words and doctrines.
>>>>>>>> Stating that it too is one of the sources you use, and thereby integrate
>>>>>>>> their ‘knowledge’ into your thinking and understanding. Now, Lo and
>>>>>>>> behold, you are defending your use of them as you do with AI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, you're starting from the false
>>>>>>> assumption that any content which comes
>>>>>>> out of Logos must be as evil as the
>>>>>>> worst commentaries and content which can
>>>>>>> be bought from Logos. That's like saying
>>>>>>> that anyone who uses ACC to post content
>>>>>>> must be associated with and guilty of
>>>>>>> the worst content that anyone posts in
>>>>>>> ACC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your standard is not only hypocritical,
>>>>>>> but super dumb. It's amazing you failed
>>>>>>> to notice the hypocrisy of your own
>>>>>>> standards, or how you are not applying
>>>>>>> them consistently, or how doomed you
>>>>>>> would be if you were actually judged by
>>>>>>> your own dumb standards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I gave you a little short history on them and their actions, so as to
>>>>>>>> caution
>>>>>>>> you when you use their materials. Obviously you are not astute or wise
>>>>>>>> enough
>>>>>>>> to have seen what I have, perhaps because you just got a free Lowe end
>>>>>>>> generic Sample of their program. I don’t know. I have to laugh at your
>>>>>>>> self
>>>>>>>> righteous indignation, your defense of them. Typical for you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You falsely assume I blindly and
>>>>>>> ignorantly purchase anything and
>>>>>>> everything published by Logos, without
>>>>>>> even researching it. I carefully review
>>>>>>> the author of the commentaries and the
>>>>>>> publisher, see where they went to
>>>>>>> school, where they teach, what other
>>>>>>> works they've done, and what their
>>>>>>> general view is of major Bible
>>>>>>> doctrines. I check what they say about
>>>>>>> key passages in the Bible. I've written
>>>>>>> dozens of negative reviews on bad
>>>>>>> commentaries there, but many more
>>>>>>> positive reviews on the good
>>>>>>> commentaries.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you're not operating on a
>>>>>>> truth-based principle of love here, as I
>>>>>>> understand it. You're operating on the
>>>>>>> principle that if you can't demonstrate
>>>>>>> my content is evil, then you will try to
>>>>>>> contaminate, undermine, and turn people
>>>>>>> away from it on the grounds of guilt by
>>>>>>> mere association. Why there's so much
>>>>>>> bad content that could be put into
>>>>>>> Logos, that anyone who uses it must
>>>>>>> therefore be publishing bad content. How
>>>>>>> dumb is that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Instead, you seek to render null and
>>>>>>>>> void, and to label as evil so as to turn
>>>>>>>>> people away from, content which you have
>>>>>>>>> not even bothered testing, and which was
>>>>>>>>> not inconsistent with what the
>>>>>>>>> Scriptures actually say. You are not
>>>>>>>>> operating by the principles you preach
>>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I said clearly what to watch out for, you chose to ignore it? Fine, but
>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>> lack of understanding and wisdom is on you, Your choice, your life, your
>>>>>>>> death.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You never asked me what my commentaries
>>>>>>> were. You started from the ignorant
>>>>>>> assumption that I must be buying
>>>>>>> anything and everything Logos sells,
>>>>>>> without even trying to verify the
>>>>>>> truthfulness of the content.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If a person is sober
>>>>>>>>>> minded, and Godly, then wisdom is fully available to them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By what sober, godly wisdom, spirit, and
>>>>>>>>> test did you determine Logos wasn't
>>>>>>>>> showing the right information for
>>>>>>>>> imperatives, in the article I posted?
>>>>>>>>> None.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You took imperatives as Commandments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because that's normally what they are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The imperative mood conveys a COMMAND
>>>>>>> for someone to perform the action of the
>>>>>>> verb" (Major, emphasis his not mine).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "imperative — The mood that normally
>>>>>>> expresses a command, intention,
>>>>>>> exhortation, or polite request
>>>>>>> (Heiser)."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The imperative is used to express a
>>>>>>> command, exhortation, or an entreaty"
>>>>>>> (William White)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Acting like you found some secret.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Show the source for that claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ========================
>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 May 2024 17:24:26 -0500,
>>>>>>> Article:<4g0k4jlmmockpqftmigsirlpq7pgva1j61@christrose.news>,
>>>>>>> ChristRose wrote:
>>>>>>> ========================
>>>>>>> Lately, I've been using the imperative
>>>>>>> tool on Logos. It allows you to
>>>>>>> immediately identify all the imperatives
>>>>>>> in a given text.
>>>>>>> ========================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I clearly attributed it to the language
>>>>>>> tool in Logos, and did not act as if I
>>>>>>> was the one who discovered it. You are a
>>>>>>> false accuser.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Imperatives are not necessarily commands,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are "normally" commands. It is
>>>>>>> therefore not incorrect to refer to them
>>>>>>> as commands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but to go into great depth in order
>>>>>>>> to explain to you how and what it is would take some time, and I know
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> hate such stuff coming from me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And here's the copout. Yeah, I could
>>>>>>> have refuted you and shown that your
>>>>>>> sources were evil and incorrect if I
>>>>>>> wanted to, but I don't want to take the
>>>>>>> time to do it, and you wouldn't like it
>>>>>>> anyway, so I'll just make easy, blanket
>>>>>>> condemnation by association accusations
>>>>>>> without any proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is another ink-cloud hissy-fit you
>>>>>>> threw to muddy up a good thread that was
>>>>>>> promoting good content and principles,
>>>>>>> and try to turn people away from
>>>>>>> edifying content, to refocus on yourself
>>>>>>> instead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then (probably tonight or tomorrow),
>>>>>>> you'll start a thread about how
>>>>>>> believers need to be in agreement with
>>>>>>> each other and not attack each other in
>>>>>>> the threads, but to post edifying
>>>>>>> content. Then you'll post a couple links
>>>>>>> to worship music and act like you're all
>>>>>>> about worshipping God and promoting
>>>>>>> peace and edification. You're more
>>>>>>> predictable than the weather, yet you
>>>>>>> think people will be too stupid to
>>>>>>> notice the same patterns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You barely listen to anything I say,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on replies, I'd say I probably
>>>>>>> listen to more of what you say than the
>>>>>>> average person in here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and you
>>>>>>>> read into what I do say from a twisted sister mindset.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You consistently hide behind ambiguity,
>>>>>>> even when asked repeatedly for
>>>>>>> clarification, then play the victim of
>>>>>>> misrepresentation when anyone fails to
>>>>>>> discern just exactly what you want
>>>>>>> people to believe you actually meant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, you routinely make statements
>>>>>>> which are barely coherent, which could
>>>>>>> mean one of three or four different
>>>>>>> things. Then, you pounce on anyone who
>>>>>>> asks you for clarification, as if your
>>>>>>> writing style were not the problem, but
>>>>>>> their inability to listen to or
>>>>>>> understand what they read.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So why you read any of
>>>>>>>> my posts is beyond me, as you totally lack any sincerity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I started this thread, dude, and it
>>>>>>> wasn't about you. You're the one making
>>>>>>> it about you. You're the one who pulled
>>>>>>> up to attack it, as usual. Then you find
>>>>>>> a way to play the victim if anyone dares
>>>>>>> to notice or say anything that
>>>>>>> interferes with your narrative or
>>>>>>> efforts to poison people's minds against
>>>>>>> the thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The kind of wisdom which, out of bitter
>>>>>>>>> envy, tries to censor everyone but
>>>>>>>>> itself, does not come from God, but from
>>>>>>>>> demons (James 3:15).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That you think that I somehow envy you is laughable, very prideful and
>>>>>>>> presumptive on your part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who expected you to admit what your
>>>>>>> long-running pattern suggests? If you
>>>>>>> were interested in edification, you
>>>>>>> would have shown how Logos failed to
>>>>>>> show the imperatives and instead
>>>>>>> promoted lies from Satan which would
>>>>>>> lead people to hell. Then you would have
>>>>>>> shown what the actual imperatives of the
>>>>>>> chapter are. You did no such thing. You
>>>>>>> just launched another chapter of your
>>>>>>> contamination by association campaign,
>>>>>>> and pretended like it had to be evil if
>>>>>>> it came from Logos. That's not a loving,
>>>>>>> edification motive. It's a long-running,
>>>>>>> Let's-see- if- I- can- ruin- and- turn
>>>>>>> people- away- from- someone-else's
>>>>>>> thread -when- they-say- something
>>>>>>> edifying- pattern.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Satan can appear as an Angel of Light to deceive even the very elect,
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> is possible. This is why a person in Christ Jesus needs to be fully
>>>>>>>>>> aware.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> idem. It is possible for people of all
>>>>>>>>> beliefs to come to this group and share
>>>>>>>>> their thoughts. Many, if not most of
>>>>>>>>> those thoughts will fail the testing of
>>>>>>>>> the spirits. Yet you continue using this
>>>>>>>>> group every day to post your content. If
>>>>>>>>> you are actually operating by the
>>>>>>>>> principles you're preaching here, why
>>>>>>>>> wouldn't your articles automatically
>>>>>>>>> become evil by association, since you
>>>>>>>>> used the same newsgroup to post them as
>>>>>>>>> did the people who filled the group with
>>>>>>>>> evil content?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is to laugh. You just got through flaming me for posting to groups
>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>> you described here, and now you stipulated that this is one of those
>>>>>>>> evil
>>>>>>>> groups. If my posts are now evil because I post here, then yours cannot
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> considered holy and wise. Catch 22.
>>>>>>>> Hoisted on you own petard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're the one who tried to imply that
>>>>>>> anything which comes out of a Logos app
>>>>>>> has to be as evil as the worst content
>>>>>>> available for the app. This would be
>>>>>>> like claiming any who used ACC must be
>>>>>>> posting content that's as bad as the
>>>>>>> worst articles in the group. Your
>>>>>>> standards are self-evidently dumb and
>>>>>>> you apply them in the most
>>>>>>> self-evidently hypocritical of ways.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Another example of corruption is that which took place over the
>>>>>>>>>> centuries
>>>>>>>>>> with the doctrines of the RCC, and many of those doctrines still
>>>>>>>>>> infect
>>>>>>>>>> many, many churches, literature, Bible translations, as well as
>>>>>>>>>> lingual
>>>>>>>>>> understandings even found in Some bible concordances.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> id.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus, it is you who is not trying the
>>>>>>>>> spirits. You're trying to make sweeping,
>>>>>>>>> blanket claims about all content that
>>>>>>>>> comes out of a Logos app, when you are
>>>>>>>>> not even demonstrating from the content
>>>>>>>>> posted in this article, that the
>>>>>>>>> imperatives were false, satanic, and
>>>>>>>>> leading people astray from God.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Had you read their list of options, you would have seen how they would
>>>>>>>> shade
>>>>>>>> their program to fit your religious boundaries.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have not demonstrated that the words
>>>>>>> originally posted in this thread were
>>>>>>> not actually imperatives, but rather
>>>>>>> that they were presented as imperatives
>>>>>>> falsely, to lead people astray from the
>>>>>>> true meaning of God's word. Therefore,
>>>>>>> you're not saving anyone from anything
>>>>>>> by trying to tarnish the thread, other
>>>>>>> than possibly the reward of being
>>>>>>> edified by understanding the benefits of
>>>>>>> finding imperatives in a text.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On your part, you're not promoting
>>>>>>> edifying content here in this thread.
>>>>>>> You're trying to contaminate and poison
>>>>>>> people's minds against edifying and
>>>>>>> accurate Bible content. You do these
>>>>>>> kind of baseless things by default,
>>>>>>> nearly every time someone other than you
>>>>>>> posts something which might be perceived
>>>>>>> as being of some edifying value. That
>>>>>>> long-term pattern seems much more
>>>>>>> consistent with someone who is operating
>>>>>>> out of bitter envy than out of a desire
>>>>>>> to promote love and edification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But according to your standards anyone or anything who quotes the Bible
>>>>>>>> correctly is correct and to be trusted. Your standard, not mine. Which
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> also use to justify the usage of AI and anything else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The content of a post is either
>>>>>>> consistent with the truth revealed in
>>>>>>> Scripture or it is not. It doesn't
>>>>>>> automatically become evil, just because
>>>>>>> someone used Logos or AI to assist in
>>>>>>> their work. Everything that everyone
>>>>>>> says should be compared to Scripture and
>>>>>>> evaluated by Scripture, before it is
>>>>>>> trusted, as I always clearly note in my
>>>>>>> disclaimer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, you provide no convincing
>>>>>>> reason that the imperatives were
>>>>>>> inaccurately or improperly labeled as
>>>>>>> imperatives.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Satan also does that,
>>>>>>>> yet he is known to be a liar and not to be trusted in anything, per the
>>>>>>>> Lord.
>>>>>>>> Not you. According to your concepts he must be correct when he quotes
>>>>>>>> scripture. Your standards that you set up. Yet, OTH, if I were to vote
>>>>>>>> scripture there is some sort of evil intent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are the one saying, "he must be
>>>>>>> correct when he quotes scripture", not
>>>>>>> me. I have never said that, and have
>>>>>>> noted Satan quotes Scripture incorrectly
>>>>>>> on multiple occasions. What I have been
>>>>>>> saying all along, in every post, is
>>>>>>> shown clearly in my disclaimer. It's
>>>>>>> there in writing in every header, and on
>>>>>>> a website.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have followed your diatribe in this post far longer than I should
>>>>>>>> have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The diatribe is your effort to poison
>>>>>>> people's minds against the content of a
>>>>>>> solid post. I'm the one wasting my time
>>>>>>> with your repetitive pattern of
>>>>>>> launching mind-poisoning campaigns every
>>>>>>> time someone posts edifying content. You
>>>>>>> launch the dumb assault, then play the
>>>>>>> victim, as if you were minding your own
>>>>>>> business and I decided to attack you for
>>>>>>> no reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>> I stated in my last reply to you, your choice is on you. You can chose
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> ignore what I said and blindly continue on, and instead of just doing
>>>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>>> you somehow feel that you have to justify your continued use of their
>>>>>>>> program, without exercising due diligence. So why all the diatribe?
>>>>>>>> Trying
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> convince yourself?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translation: Why are you not accepting
>>>>>>> as an established fact, my lengthy and
>>>>>>> ongoing effort to poison people's minds
>>>>>>> against the truth in your post, with
>>>>>>> never-ending diatribe?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're the one doing it, then you play
>>>>>>> the victim, as if it's being done to
>>>>>>> you. If you don't want to be called out
>>>>>>> for your dumb assault campaigns, then
>>>>>>> stop making them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, continue on posting in this “evil” group, thus ’soiling your
>>>>>>>> “fine” posts’ bring them all to naught. Your words, not mine.
>>>>>>>> Making
>>>>>>>> sure of their error by using unvetted sources, instead of taking the
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> learn of the Lord.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're the one calling for "testing the
>>>>>>> spirits" over something which you have
>>>>>>> not tested or shown to be in error.
>>>>>>> You're the one making a never ending
>>>>>>> assault campaign against this post, with
>>>>>>> idiotic an hypocritical standards. If
>>>>>>> you don't want to be called out for
>>>>>>> doing it, then stop dedicating your life
>>>>>>> to muddying-up and trying to poison
>>>>>>> people's minds against edifying content.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You won't. You'll go play the victim of
>>>>>>> your own assault, post a couple links to
>>>>>>> worship music, and pretend like you're
>>>>>>> disheartened that people aren't getting
>>>>>>> along in the newsgroups. Then you'll
>>>>>>> launch another assault campaign the next
>>>>>>> time you perceive edifying content has
>>>>>>> been published. That's what your
>>>>>>> long-running pattern indicates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Many are seemingly
>>>>>>>>>> small and insignificant yet the weaken the faith of many, and so it is
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> the current crop and ownership of LOGOS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .id
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It blends many ideologies even
>>>>>>>>>> though they say they try and isolated things to certain denominational
>>>>>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> id.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have been associated with them since their origin and the original
>>>>>>>>>> people from Simi. It has since gone through several buyouts as well as
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> effectively shut down other software companies by buying them out,
>>>>>>>>>> combining
>>>>>>>>>> resources, while in some cases keeping the names of other programs
>>>>>>>>>> active.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> id.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What I gave you was info to the wise. Do what you will with it, I
>>>>>>>>>> suspect
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> end results will just be another integration into your arsenal as you
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> done with AI.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which of the imperatives claimed in this
>>>>>>>>> article were false, misleading, and
>>>>>>>>> Satanically manipulated, as determined
>>>>>>>>> by a Biblical testing of the spirits?
>>>>>>>>> None.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For example, electricity can and is
>>>>>>>>>>> regularly used for evil purposes,
>>>>>>>>>>> therefore anything produced with the use
>>>>>>>>>>> of electricity must be regarded as evil.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jehovah's Witnesses use Bibles,
>>>>>>>>>>> therefore all uses of the Bible must be
>>>>>>>>>>> evil.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My eye saw something evil, therefore any
>>>>>>>>>>> and every use of the eyes must be
>>>>>>>>>>> regarded as evil.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Someone used their mouth to speak evil
>>>>>>>>>>> words, therefore speaking with your
>>>>>>>>>>> mouth is evil.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No longer is it the tool that is started out to be, years ago. You
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>> request the “shading of understanding” you desire so as to fit
>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>> particular truth/denomination/religion/cult. I now use it almost
>>>>>>>>>>>> never.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll look at it when it is upgraded every year of so.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I despise online key functions, sources, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is no good where there is no internet for any serious research.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>> too,
>>>>>>>>>>>> like AI, is a source of the thoughts of the minds of men.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ephesians 4 says God gave some pastors
>>>>>>>>>>> and teachers for the edification of the
>>>>>>>>>>> saints. Why would you think you have
>>>>>>>>>>> something to say here, and think that it
>>>>>>>>>>> was powered by the Holy Spirit, but that
>>>>>>>>>>> none of the people whom God gifted to be
>>>>>>>>>>> a pastor or teacher in the church have
>>>>>>>>>>> anything to say other than what comes
>>>>>>>>>>> from the minds of men?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your efforts to smear by association,
>>>>>>>>>>> make you look like someone who is
>>>>>>>>>>> operating out of envy and selfish
>>>>>>>>>>> ambition to make sure that no one but
>>>>>>>>>>> you can speak for God. The kind of
>>>>>>>>>>> wisdom which results in bitter envy and
>>>>>>>>>>> selfish ambition does not come from God,
>>>>>>>>>>> but from demons.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But your subject line had not one thing to do with “imperative”
>>>>>>>>>>>> “So
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> disciples were saying” Where does it say that in the section you
>>>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>>>> commenting on? Nowhere. :(
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Restate that in a way that makes sense
>>>>>>>>>>> to someone other than yourself, please.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition to insights like that, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> may not always be visible on a surface
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading of the English translations,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are several benefits in finding
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the imperatives. Here are some of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clarity of Commands:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greek imperatives clearly indicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> commands, instructions, or exhortations
>>>>>>>>>>>>> given by biblical authors. By
>>>>>>>>>>>>> identifying these imperatives, you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish between descriptive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements and prescriptive commands,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aiding in accurate interpretation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of Scripture (Matthew
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 28:19-20 ESV).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Emphasis on Urgency and Importance:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Imperatives often convey a sense of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> urgency or importance. Recognizing these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> helps you understand what the biblical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> authors and, ultimately, God prioritize
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of behavior, attitudes, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> responses (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 ESV).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Contextual Understanding:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greek imperatives provide insight into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the cultural and historical context of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the early Christian communities. By
>>>>>>>>>>>>> studying these commands, you can better
>>>>>>>>>>>>> grasp the challenges and expectations
>>>>>>>>>>>>> faced by the original audience,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enhancing your contextual understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the text (Ephesians 5:18-21 ESV).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Precision in Interpretation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greek has various forms of imperatives,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as aorist, present, and perfect,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> each carrying different nuances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Studying these forms allows for more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> precise interpretation. For instance, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> present imperative often suggests
>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuous action, while an aorist
>>>>>>>>>>>>> imperative may indicate a specific,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-time action (John 13:34 ESV).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enhanced Application:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> By understanding the specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>> imperatives, you can more effectively
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply biblical principles to daily life.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This helps in making practical decisions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and living out your faith in ways that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> align with the biblical directives
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Philippians 4:6-7 ESV).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deepened Theological Insight:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Imperatives often reflect theological
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphases. For example, commands to "love
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one another" highlight the centrality of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> love in Christian theology and ethics
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (John 15:12 ESV). Understanding these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> commands helps in constructing a robust
>>>>>>>>>>>>> theological framework.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personal Transformation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Studying Greek imperatives encourages
>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal reflection and transformation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It challenges you to examine your life
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in light of biblical commands, fostering
>>>>>>>>>>>>> spiritual growth and maturity (Romans
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:1-2 ESV).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strengthened Exegesis and Teaching:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For those involved in teaching or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> preaching, understanding Greek
>>>>>>>>>>>>> imperatives enhances exegesis and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ability to convey the text's meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accurately. This results in more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> effective communication of God's Word (2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timothy 2:15 ESV).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In conclusion, searching Greek
>>>>>>>>>>>>> imperatives in Bible study significantly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enriches one's comprehension and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of Scripture, leading to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more faithful and informed Christian
>>>>>>>>>>>>> walk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Heiser, M.S. and Setterholm, V.M. (2013;
>>>>>>> 2013) Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic
>>>>>>> Database Terminology. Lexham Press.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Major, Wilfred E. "Imperative ".
>>>>>>> Pressbooks,
>>>>>>> https://pressbooks.pub/ancientgreek/chapter/41/.
>>>>>>> Accessed 20 May. 2024.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> William White, John. "LESSON XLIII:
>>>>>>> Imperative Active.". Daedalus, 1896,
>>>>>>> https://daedalus.umkc.edu/FirstGreekBook/JWW_FGB43.html.
>>>>>>> Accessed 20 May. 2024.
>
>
> (See how Robert ignores all that actual
> context, and focuses only on his current
> distraction to facilitate his effort to
> poison people's minds against the
> content of others?)
>
> There are my sources for the definition
> of an imperative. Where are yours, envy
> boy?
>
> The original thread, thanks to Robert's
> typical, predictable, moronic and
> hypocritical assault, distract, and
> associate with evil campaign, now has
> almost nothing to do with its original
> subject, which was on how to use
> Imperative tools (such as are offered on
> Logos Bible app) to quickly unlock and
> benefit from knowing the commands in the
> Bible.
>
> Well, you've muddied up my thread long
> enough with your asinine distractions,
> envy-boy. Let's start a new thread which
> actually reflects the theme of the
> current discussion:
>
> "Re: Envy-Boy Robert's Hypocritical
> Double Standards"
>
> Since he can't actually provide any
> convincing demonstration that the
> content of my posts is inconsistent with
> Scripture, envy-boy Robert consistently
> tries to poison people's minds against
> the edifying content, by associating it
> with evil.
>
> For example, since he couldn't ruin my
> thread on John 1, based on the actual
> content of the post, he tried to
> associate it with evil, over the use of
> the word "incarnation".
>
> Never mind that everyone for the past 50
> or more years at least (including
> McGee), has been using the word
> "incarnation" to express the Biblically
> accurate understanding that Christ was
> made or became a human being
> (permanently), Robert wants to associate
> the edifying post with evil.
>
> So what does he do? Instead of
> considering the context of how the word
> is currently being used among
> Christians, envy-boy Robert tries to
> associate and bind the meaning of the
> word incarnation, with what pagans used
> to mean by it 2,000 years ago.
>
> Never mind that the Holy Spirit inspired
> the use of words like "theos" to
> describe the one living and true God,
> even though pagans of that day were
> still using that exact same word to
> describe their false, pagan Gods.
> Envy-boy Robert's moronic standard is
> effectively that if anyone has ever used
> the word to mean something evil by it,
> then the word is eternally bound to the
> worst use that has ever been made of it.
>
> Likewise, envy-boy Robert routinely
> cherry-picks any single word or phrase a
> person uses to explain their
> understanding of Scripture, slaps quote
> marks on it, then pretends like if he
> can't find that exact word or phrase in
> his _English_ Bible, it proves that the
> content is foreign to and opposed to the
> word of God.
>
> Meanwhile, none of Robert's English
> words which are in his English Bibles,
> and none of the English words he uses to
> articulate his understanding of the
> Bible, are found in the actual copies of
> the Bible we have in the original
> languages of Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic.
> Oh what? You mean nothing envy-boy
> Robert has ever said could be found in
> the actual original language Scriptures,
> if someone were to do a search for them?
> Well, we won't talk about that. Move
> along. Nothing to see here!
>
> Or again, recently I posted on how to
> use the Logos Bible app to quickly
> reveal and unlock Bible commands to
> benefit from an understanding of the
> imperatives in Scripture. What does
> envy-boy do? He launches his predictable
> sabotage campaign, and tries to poison
> people's minds against the Logos Bible
> app, as if anything that comes out of it
> must be evil, simply because Logos also
> sells Catholic commentaries.
>
> Meanwhile, the Catholics and atheists
> post their content in groups on Usenet,
> which Robert admits he's been using for
> more than 20 years to post his content.
> But somehow, using the same groups they
> use to post their content doesn't
> automatically make any of the content
> Robert posts from those groups evil by
> association. See what I mean?
>
> Thus, envy-boy Robert uses moronic and
> hypocritical double-standards to try and
> associate other people's content with
> evil to turn people away from it, while
> he himself is also doing the very "evil"
> he condemns in others.
>
> This long-running pattern of launching
> attack campaigns against sound Bible
> teaching, muddying up clear posts with
> accusations over the meanings of words,
> etc., cannot be motivated by the desire
> to show love and edify other people,
> since the content he opposes is often
> edifying content that is consistent with
> Scripture. The net result is that he
> tries to distract and turn people away
> from that content, even when it's
> accurately telling people how to be
> saved through faith in Christ.
>
> James 3:15 says that the kind of wisdom
> which manifests itself in envy and
> selfish ambition does not come from God,
> but is earthly, sensual, and demonic.