All Activity

If you don't get the actual title, I'll accept the way it's usually referred to: Oh, I can see There ain't no room for me You're only holding out Your heart in sympathy If there's another man Then girl, I understand Go on and take his hand George

Another example of why literal, word-for-word translations are not helpful and lead to confusion.

And then there is grammar to consider. HEH!

That was fun. I am reminded of the word STUDY.

This is why I've gone from a stance of NEVER privately interpreting to recognizing that private interpretation may be the essence of communication. You can't simply learn a bunch of words in another language and think you are qualified to communicate that language properly. Communicating involves so much more than words. It's knowing how to use them, when to use them, where to use them, how to pronounce them etc. Shakespeare offers great examples. A passage I once thought I understood may have a completely different twist when understood in light of what the author was communicating. (Hour to hour becomes whore to whore.) Try THIS on for fun.

It's interesting to note how fast pfal does a 180 when it comes to tithing. Christians are not under The Law, we are under Grace. All our rules come from Pentecost and afterwards...... except for tithing. The rules quoted are all from The Law, like in Malachi. One example is quoted that Abraham gave a donation- with nothing saying it was required or even expected. He chose to give it, and he gave it. That's not proof nor an argument for tithing. The only reference in the New Testament? II Corinthians 9:7. In the KJV, it reads: 7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. (For the curious, the NASB reads "7 Each one must do just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." ) vpw used this verse to say that we were required to give 10%- or more! to "God"- and both he and twi push for twi to be the sole source to receive all that money. He made no effort to distinguish it from the previous requirement- he called it "tithe"- same as before- which means "tenth." But even the verse he quotes says we don't have to tithe! If we are REQUIRED to give, the giving is "OF NECESSITY". ("Under compulsion.") twi keeps track of their members/"followers" and their tithes/money given under compulsion. Try giving less than 10% and see how long you go before someone starts giving you static. So, after Pentecost, no donations are REQUIRED. In Acts, there were donations requested at specific times for specific needs at that time. In twi, that's not the final word on the subject. Suppose you even give 10%. That's not enough. Now you have to "abundantly share." Those are donations above the MANDATORY 10%. The verses for this....no verses. "Well, under The Law, they gave 10%, we should do more!" Wait! In twi, that's STILL not the final word on the subject. Outside of vpw, twi, and possibly another group that got this from them, nobody has the sheer nerve to pull this one. "Plurality giving." In twi, that's a thing. It means you sit down, figure out how much you make, calculate how much you need to get by, and subtract that amount from the amount you made. Then you take EVERYTHING ELSE AND HAND IT OVER TO TWI! Everywhere else, you can take anything left and invest it, put it towards retirement, save it for emergencies, use it to buy something nice, etc. That's not recommended anywhere in the Bible. People wondering what difference it makes should learn some of the practical differences it makes. People in twi are NOT SUPPOSED to save for retirement, invest, etc. They're supposed to hand twi over all that money. So, when the person gets an emergency, does twi ever donate back a little of that money to compensate! No way! They'll pray for you, but the money is in their hands and not going back. In twi, you're supposed to distance yourself from family members who are not in twi..... UNTIL YOU NEED SOMETHING FROM THEM. THEN you go to them for help to cover for the absence of the money you handed over to twi! If you're in twi, you may HEAR that you're "under Grace", but in many ways, you are NOT treated that way, and that starts with handing over your money. Lots of people remember that "Christians Should Be Prosperous" (vpw's book that argues you're supposed to hand over 10%) was required with pfal. Most of us were given a homework assignment right at the beginning of the class, to read it. As soon as we got the book, we were required to read it. All the pfal material to cover- but the "give us your money" stuff jumped to the front of the queue.

Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible" outlines Bullinger's explanation of that. A lot of that book was lifted and turned directly into content in the pfal foundational class. Sessions 9-12 were a mix of Bullinger's "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit", JE Stiles' "GIfts of the Holy Spirit" and Leonard's class. But a lot of 1-8 are Bullinger, and a lot of that was all HtEtB.

*exasperated sigh* "Used before" is an exegetical fallacy I would expect anyone with a Masters in Theology from Princeton Seminary to avoid. One word can have multiple meanings. How it is used in one context cannot determine how it is used in another context. And language changes over time. All languages. Depending on how you date the LXX and the Pastorals, there could be a 300-500 year difference. Meanings of words change over time. In one of the inexhaustible sessions of CFS, victor says the trees in Genesis represent people because Paul used an olive tree and its grafted branches as a metaphor for groups of people. He says he can't prove it, but something something you've just got to believe it to fit... In this instance, he contradicts his own fallacious methodology, making it even more nonsensical - how it's used LATER will determine how it was used before! Hey! I didn't make this stuff up. Victor did.

Is this, perhaps, the basis of the "used before" concept?

Well, I’m convinced. In light of an accurate treatment of the Greek and within the immediate context of verse 21, Vic got it wrong. His error is significant because he ignores his own self-interpreting hermeneutic - CONTEXT. Verse 21 establishes it. While looking into this, I came across Lamsa’s eccentric version of 2Peter 1:20: 20Knowing this first, that not every prophetic writing is made clear in its own book.

OK, got it. And WordWolf, I fully agree with your assessment above relating to both TWI and RC.

I've been trying to be less legal about such things, but yeah.

Sorry about that, here's some more names Adrien Brody Paul Gleeson Jarod Leto Elias Koteas Ben Chaplin Tim Blake Nelson

Is this "The Shining"? It isn't "Here's Johnny", but her name was Wendy I'm pretty sure. And it fits the profile.

That's it.

In this thread and this forum, we're here to go over what twi teaches, and compare the doctrine and teaching which allegedly comes from the Bible, and see if it really is in accord with the Bible. Getting into what the Roman Catholic Church teaches is off-topic for both thread and forum. Oldies, if you really want to get into that, please start a thread in the relevant forum. Keep in mind, that, if you do, you might not like the thread that results. But you can if you want to.

In case you're curious, I plowed through HtEtB. (Most of it.) The first mention makes it sound the same as in the Companion Bible. However, if you keep reading, eventually he gets to that Psalms thing about the heathen for inheritance, and people using that for missionary sermons, and the next verse about breaking them with a rod of iron and dashing them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Bullinger confirms that it's "dividing" but that it's not "rightly dividing." He uses the word "interpreting" later, especially in section headers, and he uses it as synonymous with "rightly dividing." He doesn't leave a sentence that says "rightly diving" is "interpreting", but he uses the terms interchangeably. So, with everything else being lifted directly, that was lifted also. For those people who think I ramble and go on for a while, I have nothing on Bullinger. I'm amateur-hour compared to when really Bullinger gets going.

Might that be the reason for her omission?

If you've read Undertow, you know I was involved with TWI from 1970-1987 and knew those folks back then. Yes, they were good hearted. I worked with Bernita Jess, who was kind to me, for many years. I agree they were enablers, maybe some more than others, depending on how close they were to VWP. Intersting that Donna Rand*ll is not on this list! She was VPW's personal research secretary from the early days, helped when they filmed PFAL, and worked at HQ when I was in the Corps 1971-1973, and at PFAL '77 for the filming of that class, I was assigned to be her assistant, although I didn't do very much. So she was loyal from the beginning of the organization. She and her husband, Gene, lived in a trailer on HQ grounds for years. One of her daughters married VPW's nephew. She broke away from TWI around the time I did, in 1987 ish. She had been very close to VPW and I'll bet she knew a lot of dirt.

The Roman Catholic Church, according to what I've learned from them in my return to them. And if they don't know, they'll tell you they don't know or it's a mystery. But they do take their magisterium seriously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium Agree that I don't think we need them to tell us what "Thou Shalt Not Steal" means in a general sense. However, when there's an issue that's questionable in your mind, it's highly recommended you consult a priest at least, to be covered. Presumption could be a grave sin. Something could be a grave sin that you'd think is harmless. I pray about this because there are areas of the doctrine that still are mysterious to me.

The Jerk "Wendy? I'm hooooome!" George

The Candy Man Can by Sammy Davis Jr? George

My dad had lupus. It wasn't the variety that attacked his internal organs, but it kept him out of the sun. George

This was not a satellite. And "outer space" is only about 15 miles from the surface (end of the atmosphere). George

The one claiming spiritual authority is the one who does not have it.