socks

What do you think teachmevp? What's your impression of that chapter. Would be interested. Thanks.

Looks very familiar. It's not possible to get down to much more than polite conversation without knowing what everyone believes about "God" - Yahweh, Jesus Christ, what have you - And "Satan". I'd prefer some succinct statements as to what we're talking about here. I simply am not going to watch 10's of hours of videos on anything to get into a discussion on what everyone thinks about - what, dunno. Perhaps a specific point - to which we could contribute teachmevp - to shed some light on collectively....:)/>

Well sure, but "who" is "Satan"...who is that one and where is he at this time? I get the other references, understand them I think but Satan has many different personnaes' in the religious world. Who do you think he is? Where do you think he exists? Is Satan a separate individual person? Is he human? A human being? Or another kind of being? I get that you're drawing a conflict of sorts between two sides and Satan and his clan are on one side. When you say Satan and his clan, I don't understand who you're saying Satan is. I get what you're saying his clan is -but who are you saying Satan is?

I hope his family manages his obligations and lifestyle closely. He has had well deserved success. I'd hate to see him fail performing onstage in front of an audience.

I would speak to the change that I know. When, how, to whom, all of that - yeah, the more the better. I don't have any real problems with the Big Tent approach, mass marketing with television, all of that - but I don't know how effective or authentic that is - it's another kind of thing in my opinion. Sharing person to person at the point of interest, need is what I see, the "human" approach is the only one I know. "For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." "Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things." The Christian paradigm isn't one that you encounter in other things - there are aspects of the way of Jesus Christ and the new redemption and life in Christ in other things but the core message relates to something people won't encounter anywhere else. So those who have had the encounter, the experience, have heard and seen need to speak to those things. That appears to be how the message gets shared. God will "work" in the individual in ways that He chooses, that's not up to me. But I think it's only realistic and normal to communicate the new life in Christ. But if anyone including me chooses not to - fine. I'm not going to beat myself over the head for not meeting someone else's quota either. Keep it real and I'll have no 'splaining to do, is how I see it

To clarify that questions - and I may just not understand what you mean - but if nothing happens until the messiah's body of believers is gathered up, as you say, but it's possible to see initial movement and progression from Satan's Camp - are you suggesting that he/they have a "heads up" as it were, that the messiah's body of believers is going to gathered up soon, or that there's a connection between the two, a dependency of some kind? Just trying to understand what you meant, thanks.

Speaking of Satan and his clan, who are the major players out there now? Names, anyone? I'm also curious - I can't watch that video series, teachme, sorry - but who or what is "Satan" in your estimation? How would you describe Satan, what he is and where he is now, today? I have read many different perspectives on that, including what the Bible says, so I'm curious how you see it particularly in the context of your statement you see the Book of Revelation being set up. Thanks.

Ah, here we are, the usual suspects. I need to make some concrete contribution here or soon I'll be thought of as some interloper goober ish type. Soon, I promise. Next time. But while I'm here - I'd suggest John Carpenter's trilogy - The Thing, Prince of Darkness and In the Mouth of Madness - for a complete statement and road map of the spiritual realities at play in the world. Not because I think they're reasonable or make any sense whatsoever, they're patently ridiculous horror film fare but he was able to take some of the basic philosophical, religious and political ideas and concepts and wrap them into some pretty bizarre cinema. Not really entertaining, in fact I shouldn't even really recommend them but since I'd seen his remake of The Thing and then stumbled on Prince of Darkness on HBO years ago, I felt like I had to try and do something to redeem the otherwise complete waste of time they amounted to. Prince of Darkness is however worth the time to watch it - it's a complete spook fest, I would not recommend watching it alone or late in the day if you're at all squeamish. It's not just gross out, there's some of that - but the way he strings the ideas of God, Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ and Lucifer/Satan together into a sci - fi flick, including a time travel twist - it's pretty deep. Plus he does it by turning the whole thing upside down in a rather inventive way - I won't divulge the outcome of the movie but....it leaves you unsure what's reality and what isn't. Which is what "conspiracy" theory does, IMO. It plays well to a mentality that isn't ready to accept that what they see and hear, now, today, is surely what is real. My wife and I were discussing this just a day ago - for all the ideas, faiths, conceptual visualisations and theories of what life is really really all about - each person must do one thing to remain tethered to life however distasteful it may be at that moment - and that is to know what is, in fact - real, now. That perception and understanding - what is real, now - is the baseline for all intellectual endeavors and is therefore (he contended with panache and wit) essential to all spiritual endeavors. Food for thought....(urppp!)....:biglaugh:/>

It was certainly a good thing, chockful. And things like word studies can only help us to learn what's in the Bible. Right now, I probably approach it as both you and geisha describe. I always took word studies to be for topical reading, a method of reading the Bible in an organized way. It does help to understand the meaning of the words too of course. For me the primary benefits go to understanding context. There are limits to that though- just because a word is used to deal with say, rain and water and refreshing, may not be all that hugely significant, but as we saw over the years the Wayfer approach would attach all the uses into a string to make a definition - that will produce some convoluted definitions, to say the least and that don't necessarily add to the meaning - typically something like "water is a thing that can be rain and can also refresh when you drink it....and the sky is used as a figure for what "heaven" is, and heaven is God's domain.so water is Godly and from heaven and can refresh when it rains!! Isn't that wonderful??!!".....I'm exaggerating but not much. Martindale was the master at that, and it can only denigrate this discussion to go too far into that...so....anyhoo.... I dig word studies, and using reference materials though. Absolutely. />

Phileo, eros, storge and agape are good examples. Here's where the teacher part of it comes in for me - how many times have we heard that there's more than one word for love in greek and only one word for love in english? That's not true - there are multiple words for love in the english language - love, like, affection, care, intimate, close - all of these words indicate different aspects of "love" - and they're often used to do just that. What's happened is that in translation a single word was used to represent different nuances of meanings. A "good" translation has to extend that meaning as much as possible. The fact that someone at some point decided "love" works for every instance doesn't mean to me that I'm limited to that, or that word or that translation. And therein lies the rubber on the road - someone has to determine and define the actual meanings, in translation. When we heard "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation", it reflected a theological premise, much more than a simple definition of a word. In VPW's case he was extending a doctrinal position in using that definition for occurrences of agapa/e/o. I've used the example of the drink a glass of water before in teachings and some people respond "but what if you didn't know what a glass of water is? you'd need to be taught and that's why we need blah blah blah"....which goes directly to my point. I wouldn't say drink a glass of water without qualification to someone that I knew didn't understand what a glass was, or water was, or what it meant to drink. I'd use a different technique to communicate it to them using words, illustration, examples, many different methods...... "God's Word" uses words and lays them out as if the reader will know and understand the meanings and usages - so much of the N.T. scriptures that have been collected into the canon read just like that - there's no lexicon that comes with them, no Index of God's Words for a reference, no "Yahweh's Unabridged Dictionary". So - if God is telling man about things that man doesn't already know and needs to know, things that are going to be new, like Jesus Christ, a resurrection, new life, spirit, worship, faith, etc. etc. - and we're faced with a book that only contains x amount of information in it - and equally intelligent, caring and honest people come to vastly different conclusions on things in it - It doesn't lead me to assume that it's hopeless to expect I can come to reasonable conclusions or that everyone else is crazy or possessed - well, not right off the bat anyway.... It just tells me I need to clearly understand what God expects me to do with it, the correct methods to learn what ultimately He wants me to know.

Interesting part of this discussion, wordwolf, geish, chockful, and all.... For comparison, PFAL proposed that the "mathematic"al nature of the greek used in the Bible's translations allowed for a more exact determination of their meaning. I'm not so sure about that, at all anymore. I guess it's more exact than less exact languages but frankly I don't know how I'd weight that today. IMO there's a limited amount of information and clarity into the meaning of that information that can be gained from studying the language of the bible, the words, the customs and times around them, etc. etc. By limited I don't mean insignificant but rather that knowing the meaning of words doesn't help much if the usages of those words is as unique as they often are in the Bible. PFAL notes things about prepositions and VPW was a big fan of Bullinger's work showing place, time, motion, etc. But that's what prepositions do. The usage(s) of the words is as important and that requires a lot of additional study to determine. Even still it simply can't reveal the meaning of words when they represent unique concepts as we see so often in the Bible. So "Drink this glass of water" is pretty clear. There's no deeper meaning to what those words actually mean - we know what a glass is, what it means to drink and what water is. But if I'm in Ephesians 6 and read For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. ... the meaning of those words is going to require more effort, even just effort to know why another version would read For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. Words like spirit, soul, life, gifts, tongues, prophecy - they are just words and their meaning can be understood. But as others have noted here the descriptinve nuance into what they actually mean isn't something that research reveals. It gets part way but not all the way. And it's kinda funny in an ironic way - VPW proposed that the Bible be given at least the same respect and effort as any other written work, to read what's written, read for context, where words used before, etc. etc. etc. Yet, like any written work the words will only communicate a certain kind of thing, a certain kind of message to the reader, limited by the format of the media itself. Funny.... The next time someone says "Picture this..." :biglaugh:/>.

My thoughts exactly Kevin. One of the alternatives for the Way would be to fully embrace the formal, organized "church" model. Be the church that they really are, have members, rules and public policies, ceremonies for entry into membership, etc. etc. etc. Do that instead of acting like they're something different. That would allow them to openly strong arm and muscle their members publicly and not try to keep it so shadowy. I'd describe the splinters as "different time, different place" ministries. Some change, some adaptation, some accommodation with the same general shape at the center as you stated so well. They all seem to feel that they're a better version of the former, a version that the founder would be "proud of". To which I've said more than once and other places then here - b---s---. VP would be spitting up shortie Kools out of his ears if he knew that any core part of his original teachings had been changed and probably be at least moderately peeved about any one of many lesser points of doctrine. That's one reason I find John Lynn such an abhorrent aberration - after all of his theological meanderings and experimentation he still markets himself as someone the ol' Father in the Word would be proud of. It would be more honest to just move and build from a new base, start over, stop leveraging the past like that. I'm sure it's just to waft some of that Old Time Wayness out over the newbies who don't know any better ("ooooh, you're John Lynn....oooooh, you were taught by the man of gawd....ooooooh....." and the Oldies who are so broken at the imploded ministry they once loved that they'll accept anything that smells like the BRC mid-summer, '75. By holding forth on that platform he can keep the dinero flowing in and maintain his former celebrity with those people. He was never "that" good of a teacher, not that funny, not that effective, not that -anything if compared to any one of many other teacher, pastors and ministers of that genre', the "Christian Lite" combo-Jesus-Bible-Metaphysical ministries. He's got the drill down though - he can muck up one thing after another, chase every $ making scheme and try out every new thing he can glom onto to re message the Bible and use to make a buck off of and get away with it with that crowd of his because 1. there's always more new people to funnel in and 2. the old Wayfer are more than happy to cite "Grace and Mercy" over it all and give him a free pass through it all, thinking that's spiritual maturity. IMO if they all don't spit of get off the pot though they'll fade out, as you describe. That may be the preferred way to wind it all down, just let time do it's thing. And for better or worse, there aren't going to be too many people at the estate sale 10 years from now, fondly remembering their healing times in the WOW auditorium listening to "We're Seated in the Heavenlies"...../>

Over it's years Way Prod has put out a lot of music, some of it good some of it average, some very disposable. Given the accumulation of people, the diversity, it stands to reason that it's gone the way it has, nothing says it would be great, or if it was at any point in time would remain so. Music is work and it takes craftsmanship, practice and personal investment to do it. Hillsongs is one of my fav's. They (Darlene and crew) found their sweet spot and have developed it over the years. It's "pop" music and fits into the general rock/pop genres. They do that kind of music really really well. Modern pop music follows a form and to sound good in that form you have to follow it, using very broad strokes perhaps but you have to have the fundamentals. One of those is a "hook", a line or two that captures a thought, idea, feeling in a way that will be meaningful to the listener. Like humor, when something's funny you don't have to analyze it, people laugh. When music's "good" to someone they like it for some reason, and people listen. Good is relative. I like pop music and really like inventive and innovative use of that format. It can be done many different ways but I know what I like when I hear it. I think Hillsongs is Black Belt XXX rated Uber Hot and Good when it comes to the pop form of music. It's not all I listen to but when I want that sound, they've got it. Not everyone likes it though, or likes it a lot or like me doesn't like it to the exclusion of other music. I don't put in Hillsongs when I want Coltrane, or Coltrane when I want Rungren, etc. etc. Everyone's different, we all have different things we enjoy. Music isn't teaching or reading although it can teach when it's listened to and the listener "gets it". The Way pursues a world view that denigrates person preference and elevates programmed choice. One's personal preference is only valid in Way World if it reflects the correct choice. Knowing and making correct choices is fundamental, yes, however then the individual can and will develop personal preferences through a lifetime of learning and experience that is unique to them. One person may like one color more than another, etc. etc. etc. There are countless things that make us who we are. The Way wants to say in effect "this is GOD'S WORD, you should like it if you like God's Word and you should"....The Way's effort to homogenize a "like mindedness" that fits all is and will always be a failure, long term. It appeals to certain needs in certain people though and for those people it works and it's great.

I was told repeatedly to avoid music that sounded like blues. :biglaugh:/>:biglaugh:/>:biglaugh:/> But lemme guess, white bread "country" and bluegrass hymn style muzak was fine.

Prince might have the cookies on tongues, he's certainly qualified to have ecstatic experience if that counts for anything. :biglaugh:/>

Apologies for being a lazy contributor - this may already be posted. Do you all use this site's e books? (it may already be in a previous link) http://www.frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/PoythressVernInTheBeginningWasTheWord.pdf I don't "agree" with him either, geisha, for a host of reasons too many to list here. Agree has become a funny word for me lately, but I wouldn't assign it to my perception of what he's saying about some of this stuff, his direction is away from "what" speaking in tongues actually is IMO. But it's interesting reading, as you noted.

Twinkie Survival Recipe Buy a pack of (4) of those strawberry "shortcakes", the yellowish spongy ones, most superkmarkets carry them near the strawberries. . Buy (1) can of Reddi Whip. Lay one shortcake in the palm of your hand, facing up. Shake the can of RW and press the nozzle in the EXACT middle of the shortcake, dead - center, EXACTLY, please. Squirt about a 1/2 cup of Reddi Whip into the area. Wrap the shortcake around the 1/2 cup of RW, using a slow but firm motion of the hand. Clean up any spillage. Serve. Each one forms about 3 big bites so make 2 - 3 per person. Eat.

Thanks, I wish I had something more meaningful to contribute. If I come up with any deal breakers or makers I'll be sure to put them here but don't hold your breath anyone. There's nothing that hasn't already been pointed out here or referred to that I can think of. It's certainly been discussed vigorously. Maybe God will initiate a mass tongues and interpretation festival where everyone speaking will translate into common understandable language the current Tax Code, in whole and non stop till April 15, 2029. That would be truly miraculous. Or conversely a "Stop That" Event in the Vatican where the Pope will speak with a glowing screeching dove hovering over his helmet providing indisputable proof that doves do cry but they don't speak in tongues. Or something. God's a big Detail Guy, I'll leave them up to him, but if He needs my suggestions I'm ready.

You're mis representing what I wrote Raf - and you're supporting my decision to not participate in this discussion, which I'm about to resume. I've already stated I didn't post what I did to convince anyone it was true - it is but that's a useless fact to anyone here other than me. You've stated that while you will accept that I'm writing what I believe to be true - you can't reasonably accept that it is what actually happened. I may have thought that it occurred the way I describe it but it may not have been what I believe it was. What sucks is you paint my incident in a way that isn't true to what I wrote when you state - the notion that SIT is language when anonymous people drop in from Asia and disappear, never to be heard from again, but magically becomes non-language when a linguist is looking into its veracity, based on a verse that is talking about something else entirely You're denigrating what I wrote, which I wrote in the spirit of meekness. That's over now. I didn't present that to support the notion you're proposing - I stated I believe that it may fit into an interpretation of New Testament records of SIT's where the records of people speaking in a current human language they didn't know, in group settings, may illustrate a miraculous nature to those instances, and one that isn't constant or consistent in all instance of SIT's. That isn't convenient or a way to BS an interpretation that I want out of the Bible - it's one of many possible interpretations. Do me a favor - leave me out from now on. I'm sorry I got involved, not because I don't like debating, thinking, or being challenged - Oh no - that's not the reason - Rather, it's a dead end debate for me and I'm not going to get much out of it. Maybe another time. I'll come prepared for the long haul when I do. Either way, take this in the spirit with which it's being written = :)/>/>

Ya got moxie kid! Great story.

I removed my last post because I don't want it to appear that's the direction I'm going in - it's not. It's part of it but not the whole or the majority. What I've posted thus far is about where I'm at. I just don't have the time required to keep up with the discussion. And I do believe that the records IN the bible do not exclusively paint the same picture you've adopted Raf. We do disagree but I can't approach this topic in a way that would result in getting angry or abusive about it, towards anyone.

Yeh, I get it chockful. I'm not taking exception to the analysis being done. Go for it.

Hmmm, kinda sorta chockful. I'm not interested in the gloss-any lia discussion. I don't know anything about that, I've read some of what's here, I'm familiar with the general idea, I know what it's meant to be. I don't use that kind of terminology - I'm not into this for the gloss -a's, I'm into this for the speaking in tongues and only that because I was "led", ie taught about it years ago. It was something that I would describe as "waiting" to come out though, it wasn't contrived or required extreme effort on my part, it seemed very natural and normal. I never had a forced moment, never felt like duh, wassat? It simply wasn't like that, at all. All I'm saying is what you've said a few times - the "unknown" language aspect of SIT is, IMO, a general characteristic of what SIT is. Requiring it to fit Acts 2 or a few verses is wrong, IMO. It can be known but the actual operation, manifestation, doing of it, call it what you will, isn't required to be a language that any of us understand when we hear it. I know - that sounds so conveeenient. But I'm not trying to prove it to anyone else, as I stated early on. I'm just describing what I understand and believe. There's more to it than that but it's useless to this discussion which has focused on glossalalia, known, unknown languages, etc. etc. I know this is important to you guys and I'm not trying to be demeaning, but I'm tired of talking about it already, don't know how you do it but I can appreciate that it's an important area for you all to delve into. I have clearly formulated thoughts and opinions on the topic, but I just don't have a bee in my bonnet on it. Not yet anyway. . I would contend that the overall profile of the records in the N.T. are not a match or equal to what occured in the record of Acts 2, rather that Acts specifically was a miraculous event, where the SIT was understood as described there in 2 with Peter and the boys. That's all. :)

I was going to wait for the dust to settle from the free vocalization topic (as opposed to the for-hire vocalizations) to bring that point back up chockful. I don't think it's a Wayfer method ways'. That's what the bible says - that should factor into my profile of understanding what speaking in tongues is. Or isn't. I would suggest that it applies to all contexts of speaking in tongues - not because that supports a conclusion I want it to, but simply because it would reflect the simplest of all definitions - to include that as a characteristic of speaking in tongues. All SIT? No. ALL or any SIT ALL the time? No. All private or all public? No. Rather a characteristic of what it is to speak in tongues, applicable to all of the above, at times. My own observation and study over the past 43 years leads me to conclude that and it' s not based on any other biblical references than have been posted here to there's not much value in dissecting them, we know them. I have only a half dozen instances of SIT's being a known or understood language. That's equal to 6 days out of what - about 16000, rounded up, give or take? 16000 opportunities for something to occur, times hours in the days, times people available to participate - my head hurts. That's a very very small small small percentage. And most of those I know who have similar experiences would calculate out somewhere in that range, I don't know of anyone who has ever said publicly that the majority of what they've heard is a miraculous event of a known language - say, French, being spoken by someone who doesn't know French and it being the 'wonderful works of God' by any description, when heard or interpreted. I think that's just the way it is, facts is the facts. So if that were compiled with others and scaled up for verrrrrrry general estima-guesstations - I think that IF speaking in tongues is "done" today at all - and I do - It's not going to fit the profile of a known recognizable language, to those speaking and hearing it, at that time and place. I AM accepting SIT as real, (but not because of this language information). And so, accepting it, this is one of the things that it appears to "be". Or not be, whichever way you look at it. I would also suggest another descriptor for discussion - "recognizable", in addition to unknown. A thing can be knowable but not recognized by those examining it at that time. That would cover some of the ground being tossed here. Just a thought.

<br> November 6, a full Day of Triangulation, when man, greed and God Money unite. Time to get paid! <br> <br> Pulse....check <br> <br> Respiration....check <br> <br> Rea-Re---ReFla-a-l-P7ÿNP R.P7.....Ytilaer...kcehc <br> <br> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ao-Sahfy7Hg?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>