WordWolf

Before going off on a 12-session class for 200/100/85/50/40 dollars or something, try the most obvious meaning of the passage. It has always read the same to me regardless of version. Even in the KJV I read it the same way. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 New International Version (NIV) 4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 Contemporary English Version (CEV) 4 Even though food is offered to idols, we know that none of the idols in this world are alive. After all, there is only one God. 5 Many things in heaven and on earth are called gods and lords, but none of them really are gods or lords. 6 We have only one God, and he is the Father. He created everything, and we live for him. Jesus Christ is our only Lord. Everything was made by him, and by him life was given to us. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 King James Version (KJV) 4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Some people make an idol or a "god" of their job, or their patriotism, or their family, or their political affiliation, or any of hundreds of other things. Those things they make more important and schedule their lives around, those are often their "lords". There's "gods" and "lords" of every type. Ever see someone live for fantasy football or for sex? You know what their "god" or their "lord" is. Many gods? Yes- money, power, sex, fame, drugs.... Many supernatural beings existing and desiring worship? Not what this is saying at all. Back in high school, one guy I knew said that, if vampires were driven off by objects of worship, most people would have to hold up a dollar bill to ward one off. (And he was an atheist-he didn't think there was anything supernatural about a dollar bill.) Be careful. When the possibilities are "the obvious meaning" and "an occulted, hidden, secret, special meaning", go with the obvious meaning. Do not order 2 dozen ritual robes. Do not make a new class. Do not make a new organization.

PotC:Curse of the Black Pearl Johnny Depp Sleepy Hollow Hm. Johnny Depp wasn't in Tim Burton's Batman film. I bet he was working on something else at the time.

A "Monroe" and a comic strip artist/writer/stripper says "Too Close To Comfort" for me, but the decade is wrong.

OldSkool beat me to it. Time constraints have partly limited my discussion in this thread. If it didn't, however, I would find myself reluctant to be on the same side as you for conduct reasons if nothing else. If I didn't know better, I'd say it wasn't the same Raf on this thread that I've known- he was a nice guy and the one on this thread's been more concerned with scoring points than remembering that everyone who's discussing this with him is deserving of equal respect. I don't know if it's this subject that has you feeling so riled (i.e. crusading against all opposing POVs) or if something horrible happened offline and you're venting it on this subject. However, I wouldn't be proud of having posted with the level of "bite" you've been exhibiting on this thread.

For discussions here, I'll cut and paste in the KJV, because it's here. For looking things up, I use the KJV and then check another version-I can look things up faster that way. For my own use, I use the NASB and recommend it around. It has the italics, clear, modern language, attempts to translate consistently (word A is rendered word 1 each usage), and lots of work went into it so it's a lot more accurate to the texts than the KJV. (I pursue a sort of Zeno's Paradox of accuracy.) It also translates word for word, which suits me best. I first heard of it from other ex-twiérs, but reading Neil Lightfoot's "How We Got the Bible" impressed me about it. Then I went and started using it. Interestingly, Lightfoot never said it was his favorite there, but it sounded a LOT better than the NKJV and the NIV to hear him describe each. I've also used the NIV and Contemporary English Version to make comparisons. Mind you, I like Shakespeare so I can follow the KJV just fine, but I think 500 years had meant many other versions exceed it in quality.

Then I think it is PECULIAR that any modern Bible had that. I've owned and bought/given away a number of KJV (back in my twi days), and none of them included that. I won't claim yours doesn't- you're looking at it now and I'm not, so I'll accept it's there. That's peculiar, but it is certainly possible. I will agree that it has no point nowadays. I appreciate what King James did- he set up the team, he paid for the work, and it was ground-breaking 500 years ago- but I won't go beyond that.

The only real textual reason (the rest being "We can interpret this to mean something else") is quotes from the Gospel of Peter. The SUPPOSED "Gospel of Peter" was written in the latter 1/2 of the second century, about 100 years after Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That completely flies in the face of the post's original premise: "Did Pre-Gospel Christians Believe Judas Betrayed Jesus?" since it documents what someone believed 100 years after the timeframe we're discussing.

[That's his opinion. You're not doing much to disprove his point- and this is coming from someone who disagrees with him!] [Just because a phrase is not found in Scripture is not a guarantee it is false. "Electricity" is not found in any Bible, and we all appreciate having THAT. Just because a phrase is repeated by Freud- IF it was repeated by Freud- is no guarantee it is true OR false. Much of his speculations in Psychology seem disproven (he extrapolated from a non-representative sample to the entire world), but he was correct that people have "unconscious" desires and impulses. But anything should be examined on its own merits. Heck, I don't automatically disount anything vpw said just because he said it, and neither does Ralph! (We agree, last I checked, Jesus is the Christ, and vpw said that, for example.) So, Raf has an opinion that we were led into practicing a lie, and because of that, he's working for FREUD???? I bet that doesn't pay well- Freud's been dead a long time. Honestly, that's not going to convince anyone you're correct.] [Oh, he did that again? Let's see... The second quote was someone else, but John's refusal to use the simple "Reply"button after more than a decade to learn to use it obscures that. So, you meant the first part... Hm, looks like you DID address it in the same post...]

No, "Angels of Light" was like "the Challenging Counterfeit"- a book about things people claimed were of God, but were either staged or supernatural and evil in origin. (Depending on your POV.) The book painted with a broad brush- it said refusal to believe in The Trinity was proof of evil supernatural influence. I'm not sure what book that was in. I know none of the books I read contained them. I also know that the definitions started with things Leonard said which vpw later larded full of multi-syllabic words that only made things harder to understand-and introduced error as well.

I just answered your claim that the introduction actually proved something on the thread you made the claim in, so I won't repost my comments here. You know where to look, though. If you want a messageboard that runs exactly to your satisfaction, the only answer is- start your own messageboard. Of course, then you have to convince people it's worth visiting. (I speak from experience-I HAD a messageboard.) All messageboards have at least one admin/administrator and generally have moderators as well. All messageboards have rules and standards. If you disagree with the rules, you take it to the staff in private. If you don't like the answer you get, then you can leave and post somewhere else. (Again, I speak from experience, both as a poster and as staff.) Generally, messageboards follow what's seen as "COMMON" sense as well as basic internet etiquette. People who can't agree with either are generally unhappy and move from messageboard to messageboard. (I know you've done that-I've posted on another board where you DID leave because the really polite staff didn't conform to your vision of how you thought they should act.) So, the staff here decide what is acceptable to POST (they delete spam), what needs to be moved to ruder sections (hostile threads are moved), what needs to be moved on the basis of content (a movies/television forum is no place to discuss religious doctrine, for example), and what to leave alone, whether or not they need to contact a poster. What all of that means is- the staff decide, by their best judgement, what belongs where, and generally make good decisions even if any poster (including myself) disagrees. It's really poor conduct online to get hostile about them MOVING a thread but leaving it intact- moving it based on content. Honestly, think about it. Is "Doctrinal" a horrible place to post? I post threads there when I think they are appropriate. What do people expect when a thread is in "About The Way"? They expect a DIRECT relation to something in twi, not something completely unrelated with vpw's name tossed in to say "look- I mentioned vpw, so the thread belongs here." Some EXCUSE could be made to dump all kinds of irrelevant threads into "About The Way"- but that defeats the purpose of HAVING forums and sub-forums. They're split the way they are so people can navigate the content and know what to expect in a general way. I know what the staff go through here-I've been staff in the past. NOT HERE- I REFUSED moderator status on the board so I never modded THESE threads. But I know what it's like to moderate and I know that they do a good job even when I disagree. (If I don't like it, I can always just LEAVE.) Oh- and just because you FEEL persecuted is NEVER a guarantee anything is EVER about you. I've learned that lesson the hard way, myself. I hope you can get something from it.

On top of that, you missed the obvious meaning. Look- take it from the perspective of the people who worked on it. I got this from researchers who never heard of twi, vpw, etc. King James really wanted a good, reliable Bible people could read and use. He thought the Tyndale Bible was a STEP in the right direction- that's why there's influences from the Tyndale in the KJV. So, King James assigned a commission- translate a version of the Bible, in English, superior to all previously existing forms. The team was VERY dedicated. The result was the 1611 King James Version. For 1611, it was cutting-edge. For 2012, it's quaint and folksy. Centuries of improvements have gone into other versions. (A few were added incrementally to the KJV.) So, at the time, it was ground-breaking. Christians at the time now had a Bible good enough to be relied on and read at churches-in English. So, King James was pleased-as would any Christian at the time. The staff was pleased-as you might imagine, they'd done a great job with the tools at hand. So, the staff wrote something to the effect of "we are thankful we have a King that cared enough to have this done-it will bless all the Christians of the nation." That's really all their introduction meant-and it meant little to anyone not King James because the book is what mattered, not their introduction-a letter, really. That's why King James Versions don't carry that letter nowadays. So, the entire subject of the text-dump was a non-issue. It does not appear in King James Version Bibles. Most importantly, it certainly doesn't appear in "MY" Bible because I use a New American Standard Bible, and have for about a decade. That was produced in the 20th century, and does not include personal correspondence by translational staff from 1611. Now, if you want to believe that introduction wasn't holy, then I'd thoroughly agree-and point out nobody cares. If you want to believe that the Bible isn't holy, well, that's your privilege, but that huge text-dump did nothing to prove it.

On the one hand, I can freely admit that, at least part of the time, that the twi method relied on faking it. I agree the "excellor's sessions" relied on that, and were practice in faking it. On the other hand, I can freely admit that, at least part of the time, I'm convinced there was genuine godly stuff in spite of the twi method and the faking it of other times. I remember hearing that people get MORE convinced they're not faking it during INTERPRETATION or PROPHECY than tongues, because you can tell if you're making up meanings. (My wording.) I remember enough incidents involving interpretation or prophecy that I can't just blow them ALL off. (I CAN, however, blow off some.) I think John had a legitimate point about experiencing the power of God, but it got lost in the shuffle. I would say that- after experiencing the power of God in dramatic fashion in one's life- that it is easy to dismiss the concept that it is ALL fake. Power of God? Certainly. Is everything someone wants to attribute to God the power of God? Certainly NOT. Many so-called "supernatural" things have mundane explanations. vpw was amateur enough to fall for some and pass them along in the so-called "Advanced" class as actual, supernatural things. Yet stage magicians can produce them. So, I can say I've participated in some WELL-INTENTIONED error and lying when I thought I wasn't, and I've participated in some legitimate supernatural stuff in spite of the former.

I agree. I'm willing to hear any reasoned position on the subject, but I'm ok with not knowing exactly when.

Ooo, inspiration hit me..... Charlie Sheen Ferris Buehler's Day Off Matthew Broderick No, we linked through Broderick last page, so how about Charlie Sheen Ferris Buehler's Day Off Jennifer Grey

Bruce Almighty Jim Carrey the Mask

Correct, of course.

Actually, once in a while, a wild guess is correct around here... ========================= Next one.... "As you wish."

Ralph and Schonheit... To hear their own accounts, as soon as Ralph began to hear things, he said something and was forced off-grounds. Schonheit said he was faced with the chance to cheat, and realized all his twi background left him absent a good verse to use to refuse it. This started his study- and things snowballed from there. ==================== Concerning vpw and his rationalizations, don't blame them on any doctrine. Lots of people hold that doctrine and are NOT sex maniacs. vpw was going to rationalize no matter WHAT he had to work with. In private, he took a verse that said to avoid fornication and claimed it actually meant fornication was fine. He didn't need a specific doctrine to support his lusts- he was just fine making things up out of whole cloth. Whether or not dispensationalism is right or wrong, the problem is not dispensationalism as much as it is a lone sex maniac who would have grabbed any straw and woven it into a "sex-positive" message.

socks was not born- socks was built. socks was the last in a design- because when they made socks, they broke the mold. :)

Ah, yes, the "mid-life crisis" and twi, where a person's glory days depend on an organization that views them as cattle. On a fashion note, 80s styles are coming back, too. Where did I leave my sunglasses? I may need to wear them when passing these styles on the street...

Possibly. Then again, hiding the evidence of their activities instead of transparency has a proud tradition at twi. Other Christians might consider that disgraceful.

Taking a swing at it. "Heat"?

"Star Trek II-the Wrath of Khan".

As much as I appreciate the chance to hit something that needs breaking, the chance to meet with Christians through the centuries and ones I've met before will be much more interesting. That's not even counting the chance to be face-to-face with my Lord and Savior. I've tentative plans for a barbeque at my place the second Tuesday after we meet up.

It helps if you know a name to narrow down the search. I remembered the author's name was "Ernest Martin" and that made it a LOT easier. Ernest Martin's book is "The Star That Astonished the World." http://www.askelm.com/star/index.asp His previous book was in JCOPS's bibliography- "The Birth of Christ Recalculated". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_L._Martin "In 1974 Martin wrote the first of five editions of The Tithing Dilemma of which over 100,000 copies were sold. It was this work which triggered the first of many major schisms within the Worldwide Church of God. In 1978 he first wrote The Birth of Christ Recalculated; in 1984 Restoring the Original Bible; in 1987 Secrets of Golgotha; in 1991 101 Bible Secrets; in 1985 The Biblical Manual; in 1996 The Star that Astonished the World; in 1999 The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot and in that same year The Essentials of New Testament Doctrine. His book The Star that Astonished the World claimed the "Star of Bethlehem" was the planet (or "wandering star" in antiquity) Jupiter, or Zedeq ("Righteousness") in Hebrew, leading the wise men to Jesus in Bethlehem on December 25, 2 BCE, coinciding with the Jewish Festival of Lamps or Hanukkah that year. Dr. Martin claimed that the birth of Jesus happened on the evening of September 11, 3 BCE on the Gregorian calendar, or the first of Tishri on the Jewish calendar which marks Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year." http://www.amazon.com/Star-That-Astonished-World/dp/0945657870