spectrum49

6 hours ago, Bolshevik said:

Yes.  

You've made a lot of analogies.  But I believe you're trying to hammer a deeper point.  

Are you intending for science and the natural world to mean the same thing?

Yes. But only to the extent that science agrees with God's design of "the natural world", as opposed to "pseudo-science" (aka: "science falsely so called"). And yes again, I truly am alluding to something deeper. (How astute of you to "pick up" on that!) As for "hammering": Sorry, but I don't quite see it that way; I was merely doing what I could to explain the point enough to cover those who "just don't get it right away", like you seem to.)

4 hours ago, Bolshevik said:

Interesting topic.  Einstein quotes are often taken out of context.  I would be cautious...

Actually, I had looked into what others thought of Einstein's quote; and there's much on both sides. You guys are sharp! Please excuse me for supposing that quoting Einstein would add "clout" to my post.

So (excluding that one remark) what have you to comment concerning the rest of my post, except to merely say it's interesting?

10 hours ago, WordWolf said:

twi's running on inertia, and retaining people who were introduced in the 70s and 80s when there were real Christians on the field.  Without that, they've got squat, and they haven't HAD squat for well over a decade.  twi has nothing to induce GROWTH in any sizeable numbers, and is dying off...

I'm one of those! (took "their class" in '75; went WOW 3 times) They ain't got me...and they ain't got mine --- and I have God to thank for that! 

Someone I know here recently asked: "Does true science align with the Bible?" The simplest answer I can give is derived from 1Tim 6:20b "...avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called".

Obviously, there's science that isn't worthy to even be called that, which should be avoided. (In the Greek, it's literally "pseudo-science".) This alludes that "true science" is something NOT to be avoided, provided there "really is such a thing" to begin with. So, is there?

This has been debated by notable theologians and scientists alike for a very long time! Now, I won't promise what I say will "absolutely prove" a correlation actually exists between the natural and supernatural realms. But (by providing examples) I'll show how God uses the things he made as "stepping stones" toward understanding the Scriptures. Then the reader can decide whether or not God has linked science and Scripture together.

Here's a key verse to keep in mind: Ro 1:20 "For the invisible things [spiritual realities] of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

God said there's no excuse for not believing in "his eternal power", because he placed indicators throughout nature so anyone can clearly see things concerning the supernatural. Without considering the things God made, those "invisible things" remain hidden.

Case in point: In Genesis 1 we read that God "made the stars". So, just what can be understood about the invisible realm by considering those? Among them all, only two are called "great lights": Gen 1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." Let's consider the sun, which is the greater of the two:

As we know, the sun provides light to the earth; and without it, there's no natural life here. Interestingly, the same is also true concerning Jesus Christ: 1Jn 5:12 "He that hath the son hath life; and he that hath not the son of God hath not life." Because of Jesus Christ, we can have spiritual life. By itself, that verse doesn't seem to carry much weight; but at least it's a start. So, here's another:

Jn 8:12a  "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world..." Now, one might suppose I'm reading into the Word, but I assure you it's the other way around!

Throughout the Bible, only one man is ever described by the term "great light". And that just happens to be Jesus Christ! So from that, one might suppose a connection exists between him and the only star in the entire universe which God called "great light". (Although the moon is also called "great light", we know from science it has no light of its own; it merely reflects sunlight.)

And this is why Jesus Christ could say "I am the light of the world." Now, I'm not indicating that Jesus is actually "a mass of burning hydrogen in space" --- how ridiculous!  But (in a figure) we can appreciate that there "just might be come connection" between the two.

Let me say that what the sun provides for the earth in the physical sense parallels what Jesus Christ provides in the spiritual sense. Without Scripture references, consider the sun as a source of energy and power. Surely, we've read how Jesus is also a source of energy (Gk: enérgeia) and power (Gk: dunamis, exousia and kratos, among others).

The "scriptural evidence" along this line is vast! Now, anyone can use a concordance to look deeper and appreciate even further what the Bible's Author is helping us to clearly see, which otherwise (as I said earlier) remains hidden.

Here are some other "indicators":

Is 9:2 "The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined…(6) For unto us a child is born..."

Rev 21:23 "The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for...the lamb [Jesus Christ] is its lamp."

Acts 22:6 "And it came to pass, that, as I [Paul] made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. (7) And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (8) And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest."

Lk 2:32a [Simeon, describing Jesus] "A light to lighten the Gentiles..."

So ask yourself: "Might there be some mysterious connection with the science of astronomy and the written Word of God?" If it would be of help, consider this quote from someone who also noticed a connection existing between the natural and supernatural realms: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein!

There's certainly a lot more to this! Considering I've given an ample amount of information to ponder already, I'll pause here. Depending upon how this Topic goes, we might investigate it even further. 

rrobs:

Let me say that I consider you as one amazing individual! Your sense of "fair play" is quite evident. You also exhibit a trait which I deem most admirable, which lies behind your obvious respect of the following: Prov 18:13 "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

Surely, we all put forth our best effort when beginning a Topic, and make our points as best we can "up front", just as though we're "totally correct". (After all, we DO need to sound convincing, don't we?) But the difference between you (I include myself as well) and "some others" is that they ABSOLUTELY refuse to budge from their positions --- no matter what!

Yet, underlying our "adamancy" is a sense of meekness toward changing our minds when a point is made which "trumps" our already fairly sound and logical mindset. And we (delightfully) concede. And in doing so, we're assured of going from good to "even better". So in the long run, we just cannot lose!

And there's no disappointment within that, because it matters NOT who actually "won the debate"; for we're quite content, being better off than before. (And if something "even finer" comes along, we'll gladly change yet again!) Such are you and I.

I'll answer your reply in two parts: (And please forgive my long-windedness, as I do admit having a "short suit" in being concise.)

(1) The Word:

You made a good point about Jesus, Peter and Paul. It does seem rather mysterious as to "their amazing percentage of success", doesn't it? And this seems especially so concerning Jesus himself who healed whole crowds at times, which seems akin to "our spiritual ability" to simply enter a hospital and (basically) "put all of the doctors completely out of business". (Personally, I would GRIEVE for "their instant inability" to continue providing for their wives and children. Ha!)

And knowing that Jesus (on occasion) even "healed people from a distance", one might wonder why ANYONE (except "infidels" of course, lol!) would be sick of anything (even of a simple cold) while he was here upon earth!

As I said before, I'm rather convinced that "specific revelation" is required to heal without resorting to secular means --- which obviously work, do they not? Even TWI used that as a justifiable means, calling it "3rd aid". (I do hope you understand what they meant by that, for even VP endorsed that concerning "why he wore glasses".)

As for Jesus' doing that "for everyone present" at times, I suspect that such things are BEYOND our present doing, except to say that (for God's purposes) he allowed that as an indicator of our AWESOME future potential, and not that we would actually "do the same" today. Remember this: What Jesus accomplished was a direct result of his "ALWAYS doing the father's will".

Could you ever THINK to approach such perfection in this life? If so, I'd consider aspiring to such a thing as most foolish --- and amounting to little more than "a silly pipe dream"! Yet, The Way (by their convoluted and ridiculous notion of "operating all 9 all the time") would have their followers suppose they could!

And yet, there remain some who actually claim to be doing such things! I speak of "faith healers", who (for the most part) I consider charlatans, which (for brevity's sake) I dare not elaborate on why I consider it so. Be that as it may.

To an extent, Paul also seemed to be on that level: Acts 19:11-12 reports, "God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out."

But later on, Paul (instead of having Timothy claim healing by faith) advised him to "drink a little wine for his frequent stomach problems" (1Tim 5:23). And later, he also wrote: "Trophimus I left sick at Miletus." (2Tim 4:20). So then, why didn’t Paul heal him if he was still doing the miraculous works of Jesus? And in his latter years (although it would have freed him for a much wider ministry) it's most curious why Paul never bothered to "claim deliverance" from prison!

We are then left only to wonder just what these "greater works than Jesus" may truly have been. Jesus continues (in Jn 14:12) stating that THE REASON for this ability of ours is simply: "because I go unto my Father".

According to Heb 8:1b, we see that Jesus is NOW at God's throne. And in Heb 8:6 we read: "But now hath he (JC) obtained a MORE EXCELLENT ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a BETTER covenant, which was established upon BETTER promises." (ie: via you and I, because of our ability to operate the manifestations of the gift of holy spirit)

Consider Peter: Through his preaching on Pentecost alone (Acts 2ff) 3,000 were born again, which is likely more than Jesus converted during his entire ministry. (And even the awesome miracle of "the new birth" in itself seems "a greater work" than Jesus ever performed, does it not?

Generalizing, our collective works these days are certainly greater in number and in geographic extent than Jesus did (during only "a year or so") in merely one small part of the world. And consider modern day "revivals": I suppose some of these alone would cause even Peter to marvel at the sheer NUMBERS of people who become "born again" during these meetings!

Well, friend: What more can I say to conclude my "endless ranting"? Despite having the "same spiritual ability" as Jesus Christ, let it suffice that (in this life) we shall NEVER even approach his "100% record" of success. (And even what little we do is through him anyway!)

However, I often wonder: "To just what extent shall we actually ACHIEVE such a level later on (at the bema and beyond) once we don THE REST of our inheritance?" (ie: the "fullness" of holy spirit, as opposed to the "mere token" we have already --- see Eph 1:14)

(2) Science:

You're obviously seeking "proof" as to how science might possibly align with Scripture. I affirm that (if one is open-minded) many "subtle hints" may be gleaned from the Word of God concerning that.

Although I would like to include that here, I just realized how far "off topic" my remarks have become during this reply. So instead, I plan to begin a New Topic along that line. I'll post it in the Doctrinal Forum and entitle it: "What does Jesus Christ have in common with the sun?"

I'm not quite sure just when I'll have that finished; but once I do, I invite you to be among the first to "join in".

(And of course, I'm looking forward to your reply concerning THIS post. Peace...)

I've been out of town since my post on Friday evening. Upon returning, I've seen some interesting comments in this continuing discussion. I'll try to answer as best I can, and I'll even "open up a bit"!

For one thing, I noticed T-Bone apologized for having "taken us all hither and yon". Such things do tend to happen in forums such as this. But NO PROBLEM T-Bone! We LOVE your diversions at times, and pick up some "very interesting connecting slants" during the process, which are most refreshing!

Nevertheless, T-Bone did say (basically) that my post caused him to return to rrobs' original post and reply to it from a different angle. And as a result, I believe we'll be making more progress now!

rrobs:

Upon returning though, the first thing I did was laugh to myself at some of your recent remarks to me. (We BOTH mean no harm, and I believe ALL here understand that.) Here are some of those quotes:

"Right, I did not mean to start a fire-storm." [AND] "No argument, just discussion." [AND] "Sometimes I find myself in what I consider to be a discussion with someone that they considers an argument." (And that same tone seems "somewhat integrated" within your entire reply to me.)

What made me laugh though, was that these remarks seemed to be in response to Rocky's having called my Friday post an ARGUMENT, and you were simply clarifying some things for me --- to reassure me that "all was well". (Bless your heart.)

HOWEVER! It appears to me that you never clicked on the link he included which leads to its definition --- and assumed it was akin to "quarreling". (LMAO!!!) I beg you to simply click on that link and bone-up on the definition of "argument". Perhaps you'll laugh with me!

Of a truth, I perceive that (all along) we've NOT been "bickering back and forth." Although there HAVE been "differences of opinion" among the many posts by everyone here (which are to be expected) --- all has seemed quite civil indeed!

Now robbs, let me make myself quite clear: Concerning my first reply, I admit to having approached your OP from a "purely literal standpoint", as though I thought you meant everything exactly the way you worded it. And I'll also admit to having taken excess liberty along that same line (towards the extreme) to reinforce "my supposed standpoint".

SO: Please forgive me for having been obtuse, and "picking" at the way you presented the OP. My intent by that was merely to encourage you toward considering what you're saying "just a bit finer" before posting, in light of how it MIGHT be perceived by others.

Now (after long last), let me give a more appropriate response to your OP, reading between the lines to get at "the heart" of the matter.

Yes, something SHOULD be done concerning the recent Las Vegas shootings, and the like. And yes, it sure wouldn't hurt matters to promote good will by first keeping ourselves pure (as individuals) and then "spreading the Gospel" as you propose. Everything DOES have an affect toward either good or evil.

And yes, I'll admit to you that harsh words from certain people DO tend to have "some adverse affect" upon me at times, whether I like it or not (even if only in some small way) --- because I'm human. Yet, my ability to resist that continues to strengthen with each new stride I take upon the truths I glean --- not only from the Bible, but from "everywhere". (Yes..I said EVERYWHERE!)

So I really DO see the heart behind your OP after all. (And I have from the start.) And yes, I do believe that "more individuals banding together" can have a greater effect upon society. And it's true we cannot negate what will eventually happen to this earth; but in the meantime we can all still "do our part" to improve society as best we can, despite all which happens to the contrary.

BUT! (And this may be hard to fathom.) I would have you know that "the Word alone" (that is, teaching and sharing Scripture) is not a "cure all" by itself.

Consider Waysider's remark concerning people with "chemical imbalances". Have you ever tried to have an intelligent conversation with (or even heal!) a crazy person in a mental institution? It's just not likely you'll get the results you hope for --- unless you first have "specific guidance" from God himself.

Forgive me for being sarcastic, but I suppose the TWI would suggest casting out that "chemical imbalance devil spirit"; and if it didn't work...then either "the man just wasn't believing for deliverance", or the believer "just wasn't trying hard enough himself". How silly!

We live in a real world --- with real-life physical problems. And many times the solutions are NOT merely spiritual, but physical. And "the fix" is a practical one, based upon things which are learned from science, physics and chemistry, etc --- ALL of which God had designed himself, long ago!

The Bible itself doesn't contain detailed lectures on these professions like you would find in college textbooks. But I would have you to know that God himself endorses these things and stands behind them --- because (in the wide view) what lies behind these things are SPIRITUAL LAWS that align with the physical ones...which make them work!

SO: It not only behooves us to study the Scriptures, but to also learn what we can from NATURE as well. And that includes science (etc) because those things are actually in alignment and harmony with the spiritual things which lie "behind them", from which they are derived! Here's a simple related verse:

Ro 1:20 "For the invisible things [spiritual realities] of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being UNDERSTOOD by the things that are MADE, even his eternal power and Godhead..."

You'd be surprised what you could learn about the Bible by simply "looking behind" the things God made. Time fails me to explain...but let me simply say that what the sun does in the physical sense for the earth is what Jesus does in the spiritual sense for the Church! (Please forgive my lack of documentation here, for it's quite vast. Maybe I'll start a Topic of my own on that, as an example of this wonderful reality.)

What I'm saying rrobs is that "da Woid, da Woid, and nothing but da Woid" will just not fix things by itself. You need MORE than written words to accomplish things in this world. You also need the science, etc, which lies behind it!

OK, Mel...back to reality! 

T-Bone offered PRACTICAL and VIABLE solutions to the problems of society, by doing what we can to stay informed as to what's happening around us (via the media...it's not ALL corrupt, ya know!) and addressing those issues with our Representatives and Congressmen to adapt our laws accordingly, which (in the case at hand, for example) will at least diminish the ability (to some extent, anyway) for people to have weapons "they just don't need" for hunting and personal protection.

rrobs:

I'm assuming you meant well by starting this topic. Having read it entirely, I did appreciate your having admitted the following concerning your own treatment of Acts 17:11:

Oct 12th: "Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I learned something from it." (and) "Sometimes I go too fast. Gotta slow down, especially in handling God's word."

Oct 13th: "Point taken. You have valid claims. Thanks for the input. It has helped. I'll take it to heart for my next post. I always like to improve."

So, (at least) this demonstrates your willingness to concede a point when convinced otherwise, which causes me to consider you "might do the same" if I dare responding to an appeal you frequently made throughout, namely:

Oct 6: "...please tell me from the word where anything I said is not aligned with that word."

Oct 7: "I didn't ask you, the reader, to support my claims. I asked to to show me where I'm off. So far nothing and I don't think there will be anything because what I said is in perfect alignment with the word. If you don't think so, then tell me where."

Oct 11: "But after all this why hasn't anybody told me where my post if off the mark?" [and] "I would think that anybody that disagrees with my post should explain why they disagree..." [and] "So again, where is my post off? If anybody can tell me chapter and verse where I'm off, then I will change my thinking on the matter."

That said, OKAY rrobs: "I'll bite": But first of all, know that my intent is NOT to be argumentative. And please be mindful that (although I WILL include scripture references) I'm hoping the ones I choose will suffice as "authoritative enough in your eyes" to support my position, without "going on and on" --- which would tend toward overkill. I'll also appeal with what's considered by most as "good old common horse sense". (Yet, if you STILL require further clarification, I'll certainly try to be patient.)

In your first paragraph, you began: "The quality of life of a society is ultimately determined by the thoughts that each individual in that society holds in their mind. Those thoughts in turn are dependant on the things each individual is told by sources outside of ourselves. That is basic to life."

You're proposing that what society becomes as a whole is entirely dependent upon what individuals think, which is derived from what they are told. And the KEY word which stands out to me is "TOLD", which (in your second paragraph) speaks of what some refer to these days as the "lame-stream media". (LOL)

But! Let's back up and continue your remarks in that first paragraph, where you provide THE REASON why your proposal must be true: "Someone telling you they love you fills your mind with positive thoughts. Should that same person tell you they hate you, your mind tends towards more negative thoughts."

Personally, I must disagree with your reasoning here, because (unlike the Word of God) what you've declared is NOT always true. Simply: Just because "someone says they love me" my mind is NOT "full of positive thoughts". What if I hear that from someone who has proven in times past that he hates me? Am I full of joy? NO WAY! (I'm just not gullible enough to take him seriously.)

And let's also evaluate what you said next: If that SAME person (the one who hates me) admits that he hates me (which is actually being honest!) does my mind "tend toward negative thoughts"? HELL NO! Why not? Because I evaluate what I hear BEFORE I dare let it influence my heart. In other words, I think for myself.

And after that, you then propose "your solution" to this problem (which I've just demonstrated is NOT a problem to me personally) saying: "To reverse this each individual must change the diet upon which their mind feeds."

And just what is it you're trying to "reverse"? In context, it can only refer to (using your own words) "a society with a low quality of life." In other words, you're implying that it's possible to change society for the better...which actually sounds like an admirable endeavor. But (alas) this hope of yours is quite futile. Let me explain why I believe this to be true:

Underlying all of this is the crazy notion that "if enough individuals would stop feeding their minds on the negative media from the world and put on the positive message from the Word of God, then society will improve."

But sadly, there just aren't enough individuals to accomplish such a thing. Even if a MAJORITY of the world's population promoted things of a positive nature, that STILL wouldn't "reverse the trend". Why?

First of all, the only ones who COULD accomplish this (if it were even possible) would be those who trust in the TRUE God. Assuming this would be "the real Christians", what does Scripture answer to that? One example is: "Many are called, but few are chosen." Assuming you understand what's behind that statement, you KNOW we'll never have a majority in that regard, so you can forget that as "a possible solution to the ills of society".

But even that's a moot point when you merely consider this one verse: 2Tim 3:13 "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." (And please don't forget to also consider "the overall context" of that verse!)

Spiritually speaking, this describes the very nature of they who make up the VAST MAJORITY of the people on this planet. No matter what we do, society in general IS going to become worse and worse, both in numbers and in quality. And there's NOTHING you or I can possibly do to "reverse that trend".

And if you ever get to where you suppose you're succeeding in such a "worthy endeavor", then your mind is in direct opposition to what God has already declared to be the future of society as we know it. Surely, we understand that (eventually) ALL OF THIS will be replaced with "a new heaven and earth".

Concerning the rest of your original post (Matt 4:4 and 2Pet 1:3, with explanations as to how they relate to the matter at hand) --- all of that is little more than an attempt to support your premise that individuals can (as you said near the end) "do something positive to change the course of our world".

So, can we individuals have ANY impact on society whatsoever? YES! We can share the light of the Word with people and do our best to teach them how they might "think for themselves" and enjoy their lives here upon earth until Christ returns.

BUT! Can we reverse the trend in society from just getting worse and worse to somehow becoming better and better? Or are we ever going to "change the course of our world" and negate what God prophesied concerning its eventual destruction? Sadly, no!

And truthfully, I'm not sad about that one iota. Rather (knowing I've been "saved from the wrath to come") I'm quite ELATED!

On 9/11/2017 at 10:46 AM, T-Bone said:

I liked the movie The Devil's Advocate , and I can see similarities in how the way international exploits followers by finesse or force - temptation or coercion...and I think in the long run it's the various temptations that is the stronger tether.

 

I think you have an excellent point - some may stick it out for the duration - for the sense of achievement, approval from leadership, advancement, etc....

 

I can see that was what drove me many times during my stint...this kind of tether is so sneaky - invisible - because it's reinforced from within us....and it's one of the toughest pills to swallow when you're on the fence of whether or not to leave TWI..."do I cut my losses and move on? What about all I've invested all those years? What about all that I achieved?"

 

Maybe my answer to those questions was a little like Paul's thought process in Philippians 3:8 - I decided to count it all dung compared to the freedom I would have to live my life the way I want to.

EXACTLY! In light of my recent post to your "feed page", I can admit that part of my motivation to continue with them (despite their constant rejections of "what I found") was imagining the "fame and recognition" I might receive BY ALL, once my work was accepted by the leadership and made available --- like in Way Magazine articles with MY NAME on them, etc. VANITY INDEED! (But THAT was never gonna happen!) Yes...I was tethered all right. But thank God I wised up after I finally realized they didn't give a damn about my opinion or independent research!

And (for what it's worth) here's my take on Paul: Since he had been a "Pharisee of the Pharisees", I suppose he persisted in going to Jerusalem (despite "knowing better") because he was confident "he could reach them as no one else could", even as I was convinced that (if I stuck around long enough) then eventually SOMEBODY would get it. But they never did! And Paul nearly lost his life in the process!

Not to belabor the thought...but I remember the prophet Agabus indicating that "he would be caught", etc --- to which Paul replied, "What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to DIE at Jerusalem..." (But Agabus never said anything about him dying.) Thank God he remained around to give us more wonderful revelation! :)

Thank you for your input everyone! All I actually meant to put forth was a "possible spiritual pattern" in the Word. Aside from the "proper definitions", and "Vicster's thoughts", etc, I only wonder if God had somehow designed things to truly work that way. If so, then perhaps there IS A WAY to facilitate miracles and healings, etc.

I suppose nobody can successfully argue against the fact that (even without scripture references) when the right word is spoken at the right time and place by a "qualified" (that is, a bonafide...in God's eyes) teacher, then we might at least have "some level of confidence" that (by sheer common sense and logic alone) such things may be possible, or (perhaps) may even have been ordered that way by our Creator.

Again, thank you for entertaining my "idea". So....carry on all....I'm listening.

SPEC :)

What's this, Raf? No comment for the SPEC's "cute" remarks?

SPEC

Greetings once again all!

I've been watching the comments here, and have seen some very interesting things! Before being first introduced to the "keys to Biblical research" (via PFAL) I used to be a "grammar nut"; so I do appreciate the comments on language, tense, and voice, etc, which (in my eyes) are all valid points here.

I especially enjoyed Steve's explanation of how "spiritual" (In 1Co 12:1) refers back to Paul's entire discourse on that when writing in 1Co 13. That's wonderful stuff, Steve!

I haven't been commenting much in this thread lately because I do admit it's been getting "rather deep" at times…and there are so many interesting nuances to all of this. But I do have a couple of comments about people getting "stoned" in the Scriptures. (Ha! Ha!)

Even Paul himself admitted (in 2Co 11:25) that he got stoned once. And I believe I've actually located the exact moment he was speaking of: "But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, 'Do thyself no harm: for we are all here'." (Act 16:28) It looks like he had some friends over for a good time. (And it sure was nice of him to warn them all not to smoke so much that it might cause some harm.) And then the party began:

"Then he [Paul] called for a light…" (Act 16:29a) So this does appear to me to be the point where he was getting ready to smoke a doobie, saying (in our vernacular) "Hey man...gimme a light! "

And it must have been some really good stuff because (from the rest of the verse) it appears he got quite a rush from that toke! (You know…shaking and even falling down). Maybe it was so good that he just "passed out" for a moment or so: "…and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down..." (Act 16:29b)

And Raf: The "rocks" they were stoned with in the OT just might have been some "early form of crack". (Just sayin'…)

SPEC

The how all Scripture explains itself was straight out of that book.

Bullinger also wrote extensively on "Figures of Speech" and wrote a book

with that title.

Bullinger also wrote "Witness of the Stars", which was one of the 2

books that were used when writing "Jesus Christ: Our Promised Seed".

Bullinger also wrote 2 books, both with titles phrased as questions,

on the subject of the dead. vpw claimed to write a book on the subject,

with the same content included, and the title was phrased as a question.

"Are the Dead Alive Now?" is a compilation of some of Bullinger's

works,

most notably "the Rich Man and Lazarus: an Intermediate State?"

and "King Saul and the Witch of Endor: Did the Prophet Samuel Rise at Her Bidding?"

Most readers will note that vpw also ripped off the "title with question mark"

in addition to the content of the books.

Thanks for the info, Wordwolf. I was already aware of most those things, but the thing about the "?" is new to me.

Thanks again!

SPEC

Spec - if you want to know a bit more about grace, try a read of Yancey's "What's So Amazing About Grace?" or Swindoll's "The Grace Awakening."

Both are a jolly sight more "accessible" than PFAL.

Thanks Twinky! I may just take a look at that. I also have "my own take" on grace; perhaps I'll take the time to post that in the future.

SPEC:)

RAF --- I just remembered some "appropriate lyrics" from the song Born Again by Good Seed: "I ain't faking it..." (And I'm sure you can relate to that, huh?) So --- That brings to bear that (very likely) this may have been a concern...back in the day...to many more than we might suppose --- or else, those "reassuring words" need not to have been said at all. (Just sayin'...)

Also, (as I said sometime earlier in this Topic) I do admit "having faked it myself". Yes --- and even Interpretation & Prophesy! (I also believe there are many people out there who are perhaps just too ashamed to examine their heart and admit to having done that.)

Now Raf: Don't get yourself in a tizzy about having called people "liars". I (for one) believe to understand exactly what you intended that to imply....and please do correct me if I'm mistaken: Although they didn't truly realize it, they were lying to themselves. NOW --- While that (in and of itself) doesn't mean they did so intentionally, in the "wide view of things" it does remain that they indeed did lie, which (of course) would qualify them as "liars". How's that, my friend?

SPEC

Yes. We have discussed that on this board many times.

Wierwille got "all author exception v. all without distinction" from Bullinger, among other ideas.

Thanks for confirming that for me, Raf. (And I didn't truly think you guys could have missed such a blatant example of plagiarism. (Ya don't miss very much, do ya?)

SPEC

I'm not sure if this is off topic.

It's probably hard to imagine that the same TWI, known today for its rigidity and legalism was once a place were people thought they were experiencing a new freedom.

He used other peoples' works to create that false atmosphere and claimed it came to him through profound insight. He was an opportunist who used other peoples' ideas for his own personal gain. Why do people still try to justify that? I don't know the answer.

I remember "the early days" (1st PFAL in '75). GRACE was a big thing then --- and perhaps even too big at times! But I'll tell ya what --- If I had only the choice between too much grace or too much legalism, I'd choose the GRACE every time!

BTW: A while back, I indicated that I see Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible as a veritable "blueprint" for PFAL, and in many ways it's Table of Contents appears just like a "detailed outline" to that foundational class. I had asked if anyone else has seen that, but there have been no answers on that as of yet.

Anyone?

SPEC

Steve Lortz said: "God spoke directly to the issues of my heart through a conversation between strangers that I overheard from a neighboring table in a restaurant."

Over the years, God was advising me through many people on the street to part ways with TWI. On several occasions (usually when it was crowded downtown) I distinctly remember someone coming right toward me very fast saying, "Get out of the way!" (I guess I just wasn't listening too well, huh?)

SPEC

I think your analogy breaks down here, and maybe that's the point of the "maybe it's not so bad" folks. I would most definitely steal bread save a child's life, especially my own child. Letting the child die is a bigger evil in this case. Yes, stealing is morally wrong, but in the context you gave, I don't care.

Pr 6:30 Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;

There are many ways to show that stealing is wrong; obviously however, Bolshevic's example was simply not a "valid choice".

SPEC

PS: And here’s a quote by Paul: 2Co 11:8 --- “I robbed other churches…” So, if I want to visit the local parish and remove a solid gold statue of Mother Mary, then all I need consider is: “If it was ok with the apostle Paul, then it’s certainly ok with me!”

I was recently wondering about the possibility of someone with dual personalities perhaps suing himself for plagiarism? Judge says: "Call your next witness." And the guy already sitting there merely morphs to the "other version" of himself, arguing against what his "former self" had just testified to!

Just sayin'…

SPEC

You think you stipulated appropriately? Is that the same as you believing you made your point adequately clear?

If somebody doesn't understand the message you intended to send, whose responsibility is it to clarify... in the event the reader/listener asks for clarification or otherwise indicates that what they understood you to mean is not what you intended to say?

I could not help but to think of something my dad used to say: "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard was not what I meant."

Of course, it's up to the originator to clarify in the event the receiver asks for it. Perhaps they are in agreement already, except for the way it was worded! With patience and "fair play" on both sides (point and counterpoint until the "ammo" is exhausted) it is hoped that an agreement (at least to some extent) will be reached. And if not, then "no big deal".

And when someone "wins the debate" it's truly a win-win situation: The one convinced differently has improved his position, now having a "more logical" approach than he had before the discussion took place.

I also consider it very honorable to "agree to disagree" on a point (or even a few), knowing there may still be much to gain in other areas.

SPEC

After a quick cursory read through it, you're right, you "logic" still doesn't make much more sense to me. In fact, aside from a need or desire to align it with numerical significance (or something to that effect - most notable in the interpretive index of Genesis 1), there appears to be no other reasons or explanations as to why the separations are (or should be) there.

I haven't looked all that carefully (or closely) at Schoenheit's presentations in the area, but on first glance, they appear to make more sense that what TWI stands by. However, I don't necessarily agree with or care for much of his commentary on the matter, and neither did I see where he has given a great deal of explanation for why he separates it the way he does. (He does mention several different things that change, but then it's like... hey, this is the way it is, so don't bother to think much more about it.) He does come up with 8 Administations, "agrees" that they aren't an age or time period (per se), but then turns around a few paragraphs later and describes them as an "epoch" or "age." If there's a chart somewhere on his site where he sets them out more plainly to see or consider, I didn't see it. (But them, neither did I look all that hard for one.)

At this point in time, I'm inclined to finger a failure to properly identify the start of the dispensation of grace as the biggest single issue I have with it, with yours, or with TWI's. This being an issue that I'm not prepared to explain (or defend) in great detail, I'm more open to suggesting it as something meriting further discussion rather locking horns over it. However, there seems to be very little (in any) acceptance of the notion that God can and does reveal new things at different point in time, which distinctly and definitely changes the way that He interacts with mankind.

To me, it's not so much about the administrations, but about a curious "pattern of sevens" which seems to repeat itself over and over and over in the Word, and which is also found in nature, science and physics.

We cannot but agree that God himself divided Genesis chapter 1 into seven unique and distinct divisions of time (days). It's really not that hard for anyone to see the "dual meanings" I speak of, while comparing those days with "the different times" in the Bible.

In my book, I show this "repeating pattern of sevens" from several vantage points, in order to give at least "some validation" that it does exist. These points are:

1. The 7 days in Gen 1

2. The 7 administrations

(And in Revelation)

3. The letters to the 7 churches

4. The 7 angels "sounding"

5. The 7 angels "pouring vials"

I would have included more on the "book with 7 seals" as well, but considered that to be overkill, so I left that nuance up to the reader to look into more on his own, should he desire to.

I also showed this by comparing "all of the above" with the first seven manifestations (as listed in 1 Co 12:8-10), and found some very interesting things!

I even showed a bit more from science: the refracting of light into its "7 basic colors", and displaying them as a rainbow. (Hell…that very notion itself leads us to see about the RGB system that man has designed within computer graphics, which all of the colorful videos are rendered by, etc. If you begin with the colors from the 6th day and work backwards, you'll see the infamous acronym ROY-G-BIV.)

I also briefly showed the same thing (the repeating pattern of sevens) to exist in music. Even Newton did some work on this centuries ago. In his treatise on "Opticks", he also made an attempt to correlate the 7 colors with the 7 musical notes in what he called "color music"…so it appears I'm not the first to ever try that.

I also show an example of this pattern from a psalm. (And there are more of these, but [again] I considered that to be overkill, so left a little "meat on the bone" for others to discover for themselves.)

And there's yet another nuance, but I hesitated on that one considering that it was along another man's line of work. LCM's Rise & Expansion book shows 8 divisions in the book of Acts. (Actually, I see them as 7, and then beginning over again….as with the rest…and they all fit the parameters just fine.

This may sound wild, but I see the 7 days in Gen 1 as a unit (a week) which repeats itself over and over again, whereby we can amass weeks, and months, and years, and eons of time! But that is "way down the road".

With so many intersecting points, (11 sets of these 7's with what little I've alluded to here!) I simply cannot deny that the structure itself exists! The various "layers of sevens" just sit atop each other, saying the same thing over and over from many varied viewpoints.

To deny this structure is to be nullifying literally 100's (or thousands) of interconnections, simply by asserting that they're all "coincidences". That's not how I work. I usually allow the hundreds of related things to "fit together", just as it seems they should.

Until you've gone beyond a "simple cursory reading" of my book, it will be difficult to see what I'm actually asserting here, and how it all fits together as a whole unit. I'll be patient, and hope you'll do more than to pick out one or two things from time to time which (to you) "stick out like sore thumbs" in the matter.

Surely, somewhere you must see "some good" in my work!

SPEC

I don't recall the time or place we discussed it but one of the issues that was raised in relation to this subject is The Great Principal. It's incongruous with other teachings on the matter. Supposedly, God, being spirit, can only talk to spirit (spirit can only talk to spirit.). Contrast that with The Great Principle, which states that God, being spirit, talks to your spirit (so far so good), which, in turn, talks to your mind (oops). Do you see the problem with this? I don't have a scanner. Maybe someone could scan the chart and post it here to make the point a bit clearer. We had a discussion on it a couple years ago.

Just because you asked: (And I'm also including LCM's "cute addition" to it: The Great Prince's Pull, from his 1997 Advanced Class.)

SPEC

This topic seems to have at least "two things" going on now (SIT and Biblical research). Rather than "choose", I will say a bit about both:

SIT:

This discussion has caused me to re-think the entire notion of speaking in tongues. To be honest with you all, I was not truly convinced that I was actually doing something supernatural when I first did that. At the end of my first PFAL class, though very embarrassed, I somehow muddled through the peer-pressure and did so, to the sheer delight of the class coordinator and the other grads present. And (though still not convinced in my heart about all of that) I merely "followed along with the programming", hoping it was!

Now of course, I wanted to believe I was doing something genuinely spiritual, so I really didn't question it a lot. But I must admit that I'm still embarrassed while SIT in front of people, even after all of this time!

In fact, I even tend to feel "a bit lacking" when I look back in my life, realizing that I just haven't been doing that as much as I probably should. However, I believe the dialogue here is guiding me somewhere else, rather than to continually judge myself and feel condemned about it. (Maybe there IS some light at the end of the tunnel after all?)

Besides, (according to TWI) weren't we supposed to be doing that all of the time, silently in our minds, even while doing other things in our physical lives (including thinking?) And that brings up another point: Try as I might, I have never managed to speak aloud (in English) and SIT simultaneously! (And I do believe I shall never understand those who say they can do that.)

Be that as it may, I would like this discussion to eventually take a look at the so-called "benefits" of SIT. Perhaps (if we can successfully debunk that notion) I might just be able to "get off the hook", and no longer be so concerned if I'm not speaking in tongues much in my private life.

(One such idea is that SIT is (supposedly) "building yourself up spiritually". Is it really? Isn't my spirit already full enough to begin with? And (according to 1Co 12:11) isn't God the one who energizes the manifestations anyway…and not me? Hmmm...)

Biblical Research:

Sure, we've all been taught about "the keys". I was happy (via PFAL, etc) to have learned many things which helped me to study the scriptures on my own. Although (at first, through ignorance) it appeared to me as though TWI "had the skinny" on these things, I find that they were truly a collection from just about everywhere, of which TWI was NOT the "original source"! (But I must say I was happy those keys all came to me "as a package", rather than having to amass it from everywhere else…for that would've taken quite some time for me to accomplish on my own.)

I find the following to be true: (To explain it, I will compare TWI's version of a verse along with what I believe it's really saying):

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether [or not] those things were so.

The key here seems to be the word whether. I see it as whether or not; that is: "pro or con", so to speak. They searched the scriptures for themselves…to see IF what was taught made sense to them. And if it didn't, then I'm sure other measures were taken. In this, they were truly being noble.

But TWI's attitude toward this noble way is just as though the verse is saying the following: (I've taken the liberty to use "strikethrough" to show what they changed, and then made their changes in red.) ENJOY!...

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word the teachings of the TWI with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures only within those teachings (and also what was taught about them elsewhere...by looking up all the verses used in The Way International Publications Scripture Index, and reading all of those articles and teachings as well) daily, whether those things were so. proving to themselves that what was already taught to them was the absolute truth of the Word of God—because they had made it their own!

After having studied on my own a bit, I seemed to have discovered something wonderful, and tried my best to give it to them…for far too long, until I finally left.

Little did I realize that (behind the scene) an edict had been given to the Corps to constantly be on the lookout for anything which deviated from what they termed as the present truth. And they were instructed to bring any of these things to the attention of the higher leadership.

(This edict seemed to have started not too long after "the split", during what LCM termed as "the fog". I suppose now that it was merely a measure taken to try preventing The Way to break apart even further than it had already: because of others' different views on their "already established" research.)

No wonder I had so much trouble sharing the new insight I thought to have found! For years, they fought me "tooth and nail"…merely because part of what I was trying to show them "differed slightly" from what they had already established as absolutely true. (But while with them, I never knew of the edict, so I merely considered they either weren't understanding me, or perhaps that I just wasn't explaining it well enough for them to see it.) --- Boy, was I a sucker!

As an aside: I once did an interesting study. There appears to be a "rather desperate time" when TWI began to liquidate some of their assets in order to provide some ready cash to meet their bills, etc. I found that among the first things sold were The Way College of Biblical Research (at Emporia, KS) along with its "sister facility", The Way College of Biblical Research: Indiana Campus. How interesting is it that these both involved Biblical research!

At a later time, I tried contacting the Research Department at HQ to get some clarification on a topic I was working, only to discover that it was no longer there! (Although I did speak with someone who had a title as such, there was truly no team at HQ actively involved in research.)

How utterly absurd is that? A Biblical research ministry which has no research department? That's like a cafeteria which has no food! (I should have noticed this long before, when the BRC (Biblical Research Center) was first replaced by The Victor Paul Wierwille Word Over the Word Auditorium!)

SPEC

Ok, TLC. We're in doctrinal. This thread is supposed to be about what Biblical SIT is. We really shouldn't be entertaining my skepticism.

No more invisible dragons. My point has been made anew.

"Dragons? We don't need no stinking dragons!"

(For those who may be wondering, the connection is from the movie The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, with Humphrey Bogart....concerning badges.)

SPEC

(15-second clip)

After purposefully regulating my last flow of words, I had to write an English haiku... whether as a steam trap or a relief valve, I cannot say,

Mama's clock birds chirp

aping nature's hymnody --

I will speak in tongues

Love,

Steve

Steve: I simply loved your "Japanese style" poetry!

This might be a "bit off topic", but you got me going, pal! (I only wish to make you laugh, as you did me.)

Nearby where I live is a very disgusting lake which people make fun of a lot. Because of industry, it has been horribly contaminated with "God knows what". (And perhaps its even a bit radioactive!)

Some time ago there was a haiku contest in our area. I submitted the following (not that I might win) but perhaps to make the judges laugh a bit among themselves:

Onondaga Lake

shines in the night like the sun...

Poor fish all aglow!

SPEC

And Spectrum49, I will do some editing to my commentary and might include the Greek word "idios" and its definition. You have made a very good point about the misleading or vague use of severally from the king James Version.

And I understand from another post that you are from Noo Yawk. Did I pronounce that correctly in your part of the state? And as I am typing this I am wearing a historic black baseball jacket with GIANTS on the front and NY on the right upper sleeve. NY stands for Noo Yawk or at least this is how I pronounce it. And my hope today is that I get you to giggle.

Thank you for your input.

You're most welcome, Mark! (And I'm in Liverpool "Noo Yawk" , a northern suburb of Syracuse.)

It's good of you to want to incorporate "idios" into your commentary. And --- I will "fine tune this" just a tad-bit, so as not to go completely along with what TWI did with all of that. As they put it, we (humans) are completely in control of whether or not we want to use these wonderful evidences. And if we choose not to use any of these, (because we're either lazy, or just plain apathetic about "our responsibility" to learn and to DO "all 9 all the time", according to how they taught it should be done), then I guess God's just out of business, huh? (How's that for being "snarky"? Ha! Ha!)

Seriously though: The way I see it, God (or perhaps even to include Jesus Christ as well, for all I know) is the one who energizes these. And when he does, it's always in accordance with our willingness to follow where he's leading us. (To me, that's the "as the man wills" part.) And get this! In my experience, much of that seems to transpire even while I'm unaware it was actually happening that way. Let me explain:

Many times I thought I had a good idea. But later on, I discovered that it truly wasn't "my damned good idea" anyway. (Ha!) It was God's doing, because it was really HIS IDEA in the first place! And (of course) I went right along with it, simply because it just seemed to make so much sense to me at the time. (Again, this is an example of "as the man wills".) In truth, God was leading me right where he knew I wanted to go. (No problem! --- LOL)

But my problem with this used to be that I failed to recognize his having "worked in me to will and to do of his good pleasure". Rather, I prided myself in having come up with those "great ideas". Using hindsight, I see this more and more in the poems and music I've written, and even in much of what I've said and done. (That is, when I was really trying to do something good!)

But these days, things are a bit different. I'm very careful not to try and "take credit" for everything wonderful in my life, as though I DID IT ALL. (As I was saying, it just might be God's doing anyway!) God deserves the credit for what he does...not me! (I only wonder just how much I should ever honestly try to take any of the credit for! --- Hmmm...)

I hope this makes at least "some sense" to you. (And "sorry" if I was being too wordy while explaining it.)

SPEC