Nathan_Jr

18 hours ago, Charity said:

After listening to the tape again, John Schoenheit did not use the phrase "right" translation, he said a "good" translation. 

I am reminded of Aunt Jackie, Mom's sister. She had a business called... The Business. Nope. That's right. Just, The Business. Or sometimes, Tha Business. She found a way to insert the phrase "The Business" into EVERY conversation, regardless of relevance. She'd just MAKE it relevant. The vagueness was deliberate and calculated.

Anyone: "Oh, your business, Jackie? What is that? What kind of business?"

Jackie: "Are you really interested to know? Do you have six hours after dinner for me and your uncle to tell you all about it?"

Anyone: "No."

Jackie: "How 'bout all day Sunday?"

Similarly,

Anyone: "Can you recommend a 'good' translation, John?"

JS: "Why, yes. Yes, I can..."

(The business? Amway. The translation? REV)

1 hour ago, oldiesman said:

I was thinking more along the lines of accurately defining the Old and New Covenants using objective/subjective standards which appears to be the topic of this thread.

Defining the Covenants or judging the Covenants? 

I think we established morality (value judgement) can be based on scripture, but it is still subjective morality. And that’s just fine!

I don’t see subjective=worst, objective=best. It may be helpful to understand the terms as descriptive.

Three agents. Each following the god of Abraham. Each having their own scriptures upon which they justify violent suffering.

Did I fix it?

That's fair.

Each of the studies cited in the article acknowledge that very young children have  an innate, intuitive, pro social moral sensibility. The article recognizes that children's moral sense is further developed through experience and even indoctrination.

I should point out the careful word choice of "developed" leaves open the possibility moral sensibility is not necessarily improved.

22 hours ago, Charity said:

In his REV bible…

Want to know what the glove looks like, what it’s made of, how it fits? Want to know where in your imagination to look for that yet undiscovered manuscript? Want to know how to MAKE something fit that doesn’t fit?

There’s a Bible version for that.

On 6/20/2025 at 7:08 PM, waysider said:

Humans have a natural, built-in sense of morality.

Exactly!

CNN changed the game. In 1990, during Dessert Storm, still no one else was doing 24hr news-only broadcasts. As a kid in high school at that time, I was glued to CNN, watching the war and the launch of Wolf Blitzer’s career.
 

Elvis Presley made his performance debut October 16th, 1954 on a weekly talent showcase. He was signed to a contract to perform on the program every Saturday for $18 a show. Colonel Tom Parker “discovered” Elvis after 18 months of performing and bought his contract for $10,000. What was the name of the radio program or venue?

A nondualist might say morality is an illusion. The subject is the object, the observer is the observed.

Action is motivated by the compassion arising from the awareness that what I do to another I do to myself. Which brings us back to a standard that may be the only universal one: does this action promote well being or suffering?

Before learning religion, philosophy or social constructs, what was the basis for right action?

CNN?

41 minutes ago, GeorgeStGeorge said:

According to Wikipedia, ESPN launched in 1979.

George

Oh! Well, shoot! Saw an ad last night during the CWS. It used the same language as WW's description. Apologies. Carry on.

ESPN

Elvis Presley made his performance debut October 16th, 1954 on a weekly talent showcase. He was signed to a contract to perform on the program every Saturday for $18 a show. Colonel Tom Parker “discovered” Elvis after 18 months of performing and bought his contract for $10,000. What was the name of the radio program or venue?

Sin is a real religious construct. Sin is a real religious concept. The concept doesn't exist outside a religious framework..

My stepson is bipolar. I was reproved and corrected for having compassion and encouraging treatment. Because he was left untreated and  no one got the green light to cast out the disorder, he is now in prison.

 https://eternallyblessed.org/wp-content/themes/custom-community/ebooks/books/bible_literals_according_to_usage/core/#page/1/mode/1up

https://eternallyblessed.org/archive/category/literal-according-to-usage

https://eternallyblessed.org/archive/literal-translations-according-to-usage-2891
 

From the EternallyBlessed website and other sellers of the book:

"Every serious student of the Bible endeavors to gain the original thought that was given as holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (The original Word given by God!) II Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (KJV) This is the only way in which an individual can truly know the will of God with the boldness and confidence to say "Thus sayeth the Lord." To get to that original Word of God, many things must be considered. The Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic text must be explored. In addition, the figures of speech, orientalisms and secular references must be known. Once all of these fields of knowledge and disciplines are harnessed into a research team, then the work begins. Under the leadership and spiritual oversight of Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille, a research team joined heads and hearts to be workmen of the Word of God. This research primarily focused on the seven church epistles. (Those books written directly to and for the body of believers in the Grace Administration). These books were Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians. The research team involved various individuals over a time span of about ten years, while Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille's research was almost forty-five years in duration. Many books have been written as a result of this research. One of the results of this time in study is the "Literal According To Usage." Definition of "Literal According To Usage": A translation which reproduces the thoughts and meanings of the original based on the words in the original in relation to the verse, the context, the remoter context and to whom it's written.

FOREWORD This work is being presented to help the individual understand the seven church epistles. It is to aide the workman of the Word in order to stand approved before God. II Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV) This is by no means the final edition. As additional work is uncovered, there will be updates. PLEASE NOTE: The left column is the KJV and the right column is the corresponding "Literal according to usage."

EternallyBlessed also posts this quote, but provides no attribution. (It's obvious on whose shoulders they are standing):

"Dr. Wierwille asked me to share with you the definitions of different translations. For example a literal translation. You all know what it is. If not, I'll give it to you. A literal translation is a word-for-word translation. You have it in your interlinear with a very literal translation. But a literal according to usage is what we generally try to express in our translation work. A literal according to usage is a translation which reproduces the thoughts and meanings of the original based on the words in the original in relation to the verse, the context, the remoter context, and to whom it's written, that expresses the heart of what a translation ought to be. A literal according to usage in which you would not try to reproduce the construction of the original, but rather the thoughts and meanings of the original. That's to be based on the actual words that are in the original in relation to the foundational principles: the verse, the context, the remoter context, and to whom it's written. Then an expanded translation. This is another thing which we have done in the ministry. An expanded translation is a translation which reproduces the original with many alternative meanings and explanatory renderings. This would go into greater detail to expound what a literal according to usage would give you. It would give you much more explanation in order for you to understand that thought and the meanings of the original. A free [translation] or paraphrase (which we do not do) is a translation which gives the gist of the original without corresponding to each word used in the original. It would be a very free translation, a paraphrase, giving only the gist, rather than trying to stick as close as possible to the words of the original. That's how it differs from an expanded. There have been translations done along that line."

------

Most of these "literals" are on the amplified-free spectrum. The risk, indeed the demonstrable problem, is producing an interpretation rather than a translation. And we all know how private that can be.

It's hypocritical to eschew word-for-word translations while hinging an entire conspiracy theory on the absence of the word "one" in John 19:18. (More to come on this very soon.)

------

WordWolf has shown in other threads that many of "the literals" plagiarized the Amplified Bible.

2 hours ago, Raf said:

On what basis does one evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an action?

Well, I submit you hold it against a standard that IS objective. While it is not written in stone, one can build a predictable and useful subjective value system around the premise that all actions have the potential of helping people or hurting them, contributing to our benefit or contributing to suffering. If you commit an act that contributes to the greater good without exacerbating suffering, we can generally evaluate your action to be "good" or at least "neutral." 

This can be objectively observed and described. It is through this frame I will make a subjective moral assessment. Value judgements are indeed subjective.

How else could the species survive 200,000 years? Humans had to cooperate, help each other, for the survival and flourishing of the group, clan, tribe, nation state. Likewise, the individual needed the help of the group to survive and flourish. And we still do.

WLC. *exasperated sigh*  We were incapable of making value judgements about rape and murder until 3500 years ago? Whew! Finally! After enduring thousands of years of rampant child rape and matricide, humans finally understood how to live righteously. Thanks to the Hebrews - enthusiastic child rapists and mother murderers themselves, until they got morality. Got it.

1 hour ago, Junior Corps Surviver said:

These days they don't justify anything. "that was a long time ago. It's OK now". I usually say "The foundation of TWI is rotten. You can pain the walls all you want. "

Yes. Exceedingly, abundantly rotten. Of course they are dismissive of rape, adultery and bestiality fetishes.

What I'm asking is, do they NOW teach John Schoenheit's exegesis on adultery? I don't need to be shown what the Bible says about adultery to know it's wrong, but many do. Schoenheit's paper seems to me to be a thorough exegetical treatment of the issue. Without the appendices, I could imagine TWI turning a paper like that into a collateral pamphlet. (Changing some words here and there to claim it as original.) That is, if they are really trying to distance themselves from their filthy past.

They remade PFAL into PFALToday, cutting the duration by 50%. Though that's the easiest edit to make, It's a step in the right direction. Teaching Schoenheit's thesis is another righteous step. It could demonstrate real change without having to admit anything. They want to distance themselves from their past. They want people to beleeeve they've changed. So simple.

Does anyone know TWI's current position on this issue? How do they explain the firing of John Schoenheit for rightly dividing the word on adultery? 

Surely, they don't dispute the thesis of his paper.

EDIT: JuniorCorps wasn't alone in leaving over this issue. How does TWI defend against this legitimate reason. They must be prepared. After all, those postcards about "coming home" were sent to former dupes they must know left because for this very reason.

A bestiality fetish. Not a problem for the spiritually mature with a mind so renewed... 

Yet some are aghast when I say victor squatted over and defecated into the mouth of God. What? Scat play by the spiritually mature is off limits?

Hey! I didn't REwrite the book. Victor did.

"spiritually mature"

3 hours ago, waysider said:

*Just spit in your hand*

I should… I mean, I want to…

I just can’t…

People still call this schmuck “Dr.” Even John Schoenheit does. WITAF!?!

1 minute ago, Charity said:

I've read it as well (years after the fact), but I have no interest in discussing it now.  I was just wondering if anyone remembers the push back/warnings against reading it at the time or just being able to bring up the topic of adultery without any mention of the paper.   

Being in Canada, I don't think it was well-known that the paper even existed, but then again I was out by 1986.  

Yes. Many here have talked about it being schismatic. Lots of people left over the issue. IIRC, TWI didn't want people reading it and were ....ed JS even wrote it.

Again, that JS even felt like he had to write it is the whole problem. That grown adults didn't know what to believe about adultery and that they needed clear guidance on the issue is an even bigger problem.

1 hour ago, Charity said:

I realize I have gotten far off the topic of this thread but William Barlow and his parents were leaders in twi when John Shoenheit's paper on adultery was covertly being circulated.  I wonder if any of his pages of questions were about twi's stance on adultery since the paper got John fired for writing it.  

twi actually threatened the corps to not read it.  Some here might have experienced this.  So much for asking questions.

You can find plenty of discussions on that paper here. I read it, but don't remember it. I'm sure it's fine and its conclusion biblically supported. But I'm unimpressed.

That it was controversial speaks volumes. That anyone would need a theological paper to arrive at an ethical or moral conclusion about adultery speaks libraries.

My point is that profound events of disillusionment are not and cannot be so flippantly recounted. One may feel an urgency or excitement about retelling an experience, but ultimately realize any attempt is futile. Words become embarrassingly insufficient.

This is true for the religious/mystical experience, psychedelic trip and the astronaut's spacewalk.

38 minutes ago, Charity said:

My mind has gone in search of what DMT means in the Land of Acronyms and Text Abbreviations.  Help bring in back home to me please.  Thanx

Also, your highlighted line above - a wise person I know once told me "the one claiming to speak for God is surely the one who does not." 

Dimethyltryptamine

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine

2 minutes ago, waysider said:

The challenging counterfeit : Gasson, Raphael : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

That could be it. Is there a lot of scientific-sounding pseudo-science with pretentious technical language describing devil spirits and how they manifest and work in the natural realm?