WordWolf

I have Cloverfield on DVD. It's a credible monster movie. For me, the bonus is recognizing the locations across Manhattan. With one exception, I was able to identify the neighborhood or specific spot the characters were at. That exception was the scene as they left the party- that was a studio set made to mock up a city street. I bet you won't recognize the scene that takes place at Bloomingdales. :) I'm thinking about catching Pacific Rim if it's any good.

As for "holy thing" itself... ctually, back in twi-timeframes, I was going verse-by-verse through the Greek on much of the New Testament. (I had the time.) I did look at this verse, Luke 1:35. It is true that the English calls Jesus "that holy thing". It also says "replenish" in Genesis, which has nothing to do with the Hebrew meaning of the word, "to fill". So, we look at the Greek. The most literal Greek I got from Luke 1:35 in that verse, from the phrase "holy thing", which was the Greek word "hagion", was "Holy One." That's because the plural of that word, "oi hagioi", is translated as "the saints." (My Bullinger's Critical Greek Lexicon notes that thus noun was used for "the saints" 61 times, and "saint" in the singular once.) This happens in the openings of several Church Epistles, like Romans 1:7, where the word "saints" in "to all those who are in Rome beloved of God called saints", the word "saints" is "hagiois". So Jesus, at the time of "the Annunciation" (Gabriel visiting Mary) was referred to as a "hagios", and I NOW am referred to as a "hagios". Either we are both a "thing" or we both are NOT. Basic English places a noun as a person, place or thing. Since I am a person, I am not a "thing", since I can't be both "person" and "thing" under basic definitions. (Unless one wants to split hairs and go into different specialist vocabularies in an effort to obscure the subject, anyway.) Therefore, since I'm a person or a "holy one" in that expression, so was he. That's using simple Bible cross-checking: the meaning in Luke 1:35 must agree with ALL usages in Scripture. twi methods, used to examine twi doctrine, show twi doctrine to have horrid errors.

vpw put forth the "private interpretation" that the potential for something precedes the existence of that thing. (Zero verses.) vpw put forth the "private interpretation" that the end of a life was called a "last breath" and that was the official time of death in Bible times. (Zero verses.) "Reasoning" backwards from his previous unsupported claims, he said that-since the end of a life was a LAST breath, its beginning must be its FIRST breath. Therefore, before a first breath, that is NOT a person, that is the POTENTIAL FOR a person. Therefore, killing "that" is not murder since it isn't a person. Zero verses. The only verse ever used in ANY explanation is Jesus called a "holy thing." As we all know now, it's obvious "THING" was a poor translation vpw never bothered to correct. If he HAD, he would have had to revise doctrine he WANTED to write- that God accepted abortions, and even PREFERRED them if they were the alternative to someone leaving "God's programs" like the Way Corps. However, Scripture makes it obvious that vpw was wrong. When Mary (Jesus' Mom) was visited by Gabriel, he told her that Elizabeth, her cousin, was pregnant with a son and was in the 6th month out of 9 months, that is, beginning the third trimester (in modern terminology.) Luke 1:41 "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" Luke 1:44 "For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." (Greek word 'brephos', which is also rendered "infant" or "young child" elsewhere.) So, since John was not born yet, he was considered a babe/baby. (I'm skipping any " 'babe does not mean baby thing' because I try not to get involved in discussions that are EXCEPTIONALLY stupid.) What month was he at? Well, according to Gabriel, 6 months. Luke 1:36. "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren." So, John the Baptist, at 6 months if not sooner, was considered a baby, which is some 3 months before "first breath" on the average. That's "sometime before nine months", so that darn well IS what we know. This should not surprise modern, medical folk. Some of them could tell you that a child in the third trimester has a chance of survival if born any time in the third trimester-although, obviously, the later in the trimester, the better. They can respond, in a limited fashion, to outside stimuli. They can indicate to the mother if they like or dislike some stimuli they are exposed to, in their limited fashion. This should not surprise supposed Bible readers, who had access to those verses long ago and the verses are not very technical. This DOES surprise hardcore twi/vpw devotees, because it contradicts what they were TOLD is the Bible's position on the subject.

The explanation was backwards. vpw wanted to believe orgies were acceptable to God, so he privately twisted the meaning of a single verse and claimed that's what it meant. vpw wanted to believe abortion was acceptable to God, so he invented a doctrine through what twi called "private interpretation" and misused a single verse to supposedly support it. twi said Jesus was referred to as a "holy thing", and used the King James Version to support that. But twi checked a lot of things against the Greek and found they didn't match what was in the KJV..... and NEVER CHECKED "holy thing" to see if it matched....... This phrase appears ONCE in the New Testament. King James Version, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." NIV, Luke 1:35 "The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." NASB, Luke 1:35 "The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God." ESV, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God." CEV, Luke 1:35 "The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come down to you, and God's power will come over you. So your child will be called the holy Son of God." Then there's the less literal versions. The only one who mentions a "thing" is the KJV. In fact, even the NEW KJV says.... NKJV, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God." Last time I studied this in the Greek, I found the most literal word-for-word translation for that phrase matches the NIV and the NKV. The word "hagion" in the Stephens Text (per the Gordon Ricker-Berry Interlinear) is what the KJV renders "holy THING." That's a little odd, since the plural of this word is what's rendered "SAINTS" in the Epistles in the KJV, the "holy ones". This "thing" thing is ERROR. twi never corrected it because this ERROR supports their ERROR in Doctrine. "See? Even the angel referred to Jesus as a 'thing.'" Bull-muffins.

Callousness on behalf of leadership is a twi hallmark that began with vpw. As for the cursing, vpw did it but usually behind closed doors, like with the corps in-residence. lcm, however, cursed all the time in the 90s, and children were reported to have learned to curse specifically FROM lcm.

Answering seriously and not tongue-in-cheek, I would see 2 possibilities, if the person was to receive revelation coded in that manner: 1) the revelation would be re-coded to work with a sense they were already familiar with, so they could understand it 2) the revelation would still arrive in the spiritual analog. However, lack of experience could limit the Christian's ability to understand it. (Unless, say, we're talking of one who lost a sense later in life and now got revelation similar to it.) Nothing can fully compensate us for the absence of a sense. However, it can be comforting, at least a little, to know that tests have proven that the parts of the brain normally assigned to interpret data from a sense will be reassigned to another sense so the person can understand better the information they are still receiving. This even holds true when the sense is blocked for hours or days, until it's unblocked. So, unless the brain is damaged in that part, it can seem as if the remaining senses sharpened- which is not what happened, they just learned not to ignore that sense as much as the average person.

While I agree that, at least Biblically, these things are possible, I disagree that twi understood anything about it. I can easily see God Almighty communicating with us via 2 methods: 1) uploading information directly to our brains 2) coding the information analogous to one of the 5 senses so our experience would help us understand. I even go so far as to expect some people to get more revelation analogous to a sense they relate better to, or get revelation of a type they relate to more than others. On the other hand, with twi, the examples often seemed more to me a misunderstanding of something explained otherwise. Example A: The Book of Daniel, the writing on the wall. twi told us that the writing had to be perceived spiritually, otherwise the evil spirits would have just decoded the message. Meanwhile, buried in a twi bookstore, by a writer I never heard of in twi, was "the Books and the Parchments," by FF Bruce. His explanation had to do with the absence of written vowels in more than 1 language. So, in one, "weighed, numbered, divided" would look like "a coin, another coin, and loose change" (I'm paraphrasing) in another language, depending on the missing vowels. I thought his answer was more likely-when I was IN twi. Example B: I heard cg tell a story about when he had a stuffed nose, and got revelation about something with his "spiritual nose" because his physical one was blocked and thus useless for detecting anything. Me, I think cg grossly underestimated the nose's ability to detect things, even when stuffed. But the other explanations were less fantastical, and in twi, the more fantastical explanations, the more fanciful explanations, those were preferred.

The archaic phrasing made it easy for vpw to consult the Greek or whatever to correct errors when he wished, but retain the errors when they suited his purpose. We shouldn't retain errors or lies even when it suits us. Example: In early Genesis, Adam was told to "replenish" the Earth. So, vpw explained why that word was used- but it wasn't, that's the word for "fill." You can still believe there was a previous Fall without the word "replenish" there, but you can't keep it there and be HONEST because "replenish" was a KJV interpolation. There's others, I don't feel like rattling them off right now (the ones I remember offhand.) Philippians 4:13, KJV "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." twi's "literal according to usage" of Philippians 4:13... " I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Him Who infuses inner strength into me." Acts 29 even did a song written around that, and named their 2nd album "Ready for Anything." Philippians 4:13, Amplified Bible. " I have strength for all things in Christ Who empowers me ; I am self-sufficient in Christ’s sufficiency]." How about that! vpw did independent research and just happened to hit upon the exact phrasing used in a paraphrase Bible for something, word for word. Perhaps both vpw and the researcher for the Amplified Bible got the same revelation from God Almighty. Or, maybe, vpw plagiarized yet another person and figured nobody would notice. Yeah. Despite our own training, we don't have to be nasty nor heavy-handed. Many Christians are compassionate and loving-which all of us are supposed to be. (Some of us never got the memo.)

That's why, when I want to do one-season wonders, I make them multiple-choice. I present clues for 3 different obscure shows, separated A, B, C, and if someone can recognize ONE, they get the round. It's possible to answer that way, and I get to ask about really obscure shows.

"A Christmas Carol Burnett Show."

In particular, the NASB is an excellent choice for this. It's a hit among ex-twi'ers because it has the italics- which is the only legitimate reason to prefer the KJV anymore. It is a word-for-word translation, which is the same approach as the KJV. It is greatly superior to the KJV all other ways except nostalgia and dramtic reading. It takes advantage of textual discoveries made in the last 2 centuries, and it uses a consistent translation of words, where you have to spend less time ferreting out in the Greek when a meaning changed because of translator bias- word A is translated word 1 very consistently (not perfectly, of course, but much closer than the KJV.) I've seen it lauded by scholars not familiar with twi- although they preferred other versions for their own reasons, they complimented this one overall. If you want to shock her, you can use her Greek Interlinears to show how the NASB doesn't make the mistake the KJV does in talking about Jesus in early Luke- which is one of 2 passages from the Gospels that shows that twi's doctrine about abortion being ok because before 9 months it's not a baby is completely false- if one actually reads the Bible without bias and without a KJV. If you don't have the references handy for that, let me know and I'll lay it out simply. (I've done it at the GSC before at some point.)

Scatman Cruthers Scavenger Hunt Cloris Leachman

Tim Robbins Cadillac Man Robin Williams

Without the "help files opened", that's pretty much what it sounded like. If you explain yourself a bit better and express yourself less cryptically, things might be nicer for everyone all around without you changing your content in any substantial fashion.

That's it. I will be out of town over the weekend, so talk amongst yourselves. :)

What's going on is that you made it sound like you were saying that people HERE were saying something like that Christmas and Easter were cuss words. Apparently, that isn't what you meant to say, but it looked like that to me, and probably to Waysider. Neither word, of course, was a cuss word. I've read that "Estre" was a pagan holiday, but not that it was a cuss word, whether to the pagans or to the Christians who co-opted it. lcm was fond of making up the most peculiar explanations for words out of whole cloth. He claimed "Christmas" was named for the "Christ MASSACRE", the killing of the children by Herod in the attempt to kill Jesus in the process. He also responded to "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Kill-Christ Day to you, too." Anyone familiar with other holidays could see he was way off base when there's Michaelmas, Candlemas, and so on, named after the MASS celebrated on that particular "holy day." I think we're all glad to be free of lcm at every level, now.

"Last night I held Aladdin's lamp And so I wished that I could stay. Before the thing could answer me Well, someone came and took the lamp away." "Why don't you tell your dreams to me Fantasy will set you free. Close your eyes girl Look inside girl Let the sound take you away."

Wouldn't change the fact that someone made a simple thread for "Merry Christmas" and you've already taken TWO shots in the first page.

Jeremy Piven PCU Jon Favreau

Not everyone would agree your specific approaches would be the best way to proceed for a number of reasons. Many wouldn't be shocked to see you reverse the situation- go to Nero's house, and berate him if he spoke criticisms of vpw, twi, etc., putting you in much the same shoes as his mom for putting him down for NOT choosing twi- whether as a "branding" or "style" or literally as she does with the official organization. When dealing with family, there are times when the 2 by 4 might not be a bad approach, and many, many times when the 2 by 4 is the worst possible approach. When most of us were in twi, it seems that we heard that the only approach to use consistently when people disagreed with us WAS to use the 2 by 4- to berate or condemn them for disagreeing with us. The idea that they could be engaged in discussion or just prayed-for and loved for now didn't come up often- or at all for many of us. twi'ers are NEVER known for their subtlety, and ex-twi'ers are rarely known for it, either.

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and Happy Easter all around! (For those who want to get in early on that last one.) It's nice to not have to censor our speech or thinking, or have to buy into any lockstep thinking like in twi. Out in the world, minority viewpoints are still accepted- at least among the over-25 population who are old enough to know their POV isn't the only one in the world.

Each person needs to decide WHAT is worth getting rid of now and what is worth keeping. With things like GSC content, since it's digital, it's a LOT easier to store a lot of text as digital, say, than a shelf-full of printed out versions of everything. I think it's worth it to keep SOME of the content we've posted here, and have kept some of it- especially stuff I thought was risking deletion by the original posters or was otherwise hard-to-find. I've thought a lot of stuff I didn't save was WORTH saving, but I never got around to saving it.

"Last night I held Aladdin's lamp And so I wished that I could stay. Before the thing could answer me Well, someone came and took the lamp away."

I can offer 2 possibilities. 1 is NOSTALGIA. 1 is FEAR. The world changes all the time. Most of us can embrace some of the changes, given time to adapt. Then there are always people who will go out of their way NOT to. I know of a 90-something year old woman who has made it a goal to understand computers and has progressed over time. I know some 70-somethings who almost have to be dragged along whenever something about computers is discussed, even if it concerns their own interests. So, there is FEAR of new things, fear of the unknown. Look for a rotary phone in a home if you're unsure if someone fears new technology. Look for the VHS player where the DVD player might go. The other thing is NOSTALGIA. If you're used to a relative getting drunk and causing a scene every Christmas or something, that's now part of your routine and it may just not be Christmas without calling Cousin Stewpot a taxi and sending him home. Nostalgia ties into the fear of the new by being the comfort of the old- and missing all the old things no matter if they were good for you. So, fearful of the new, even if it is much better often, rather than look, some people retreat into what they know, even if it is grossly inferior. It's sad, but human.

Tom Petty, "Running Down a Dream."