Oakspear

PM has been sent

When we do our taxes next year, included in the deductions, exemptions etc will be a credit for (for most people) $600, ($1200 for married filing jointly) plus $300 for each child born after December 31st 1992. This is a credit that does not appear on previous year's taxes. When figuring what you owe for taxes, you will deduct the credit that you allowed from your tax liability. For example, if you owe $3500 in taxes, are married filing jointly with one qualifying child, you will deduct $1500, leaving you with a liability of $2000. Then, since you received $1500 this year, there'll be a line taking this into account, adding the $1500 back in, leaving your liability again at $3500. In effect, it's a wash for next year. But for accounting purposes, it's an advance on a credit on next year's taxes that you haven't gotten yet. It doesn't reduce your refund (if you get one) for next year. The only potential problem that I see is if the number of exemptions changes. In my case, I received $300 because I claimed my step-daughter in 2007. Do I have to give that $300 back next year because her biologiical dad will be claiming her in 2008? Or if you get divorced between now and tax time 2008. Does that change things?

I was kidding about the squinting :B) I taught myself to read the Hebrew alphabet years ago...a lot easier than Aramaic or Arabic in my opinion

Thanks for the reply. I wonder what Adam & Eve thought they were naming their son, breath of God or Empty of God? I can see the "El" at blue letter bible, but only in Hebrew letters, which I can read if I squint really hard :ph34r:

Happy Birthday Dr. Rascal, Mistress of Darkness, Matriarch of the 14th Tribe

Hmmm....hadn't thought of that. Makes sense in light of his trying to make things "fit", rather than let verses say what they're saying. This is obvious in his treatment of things like the nature of Jesus Christ. Verses are discarded, not because there is any real evidence that they are later additions or mistranslations, but because they don't fit with what he has already decided is the truth.

You say that like it's a bad thing

While I believe that stigmatizing single women with children is wrong, I also believe that a child does best with two parents. This is not to say that a child with only one parent is damaged goods in some way, or that there aren't some too parent families where the kids would be better off without one or the other (sometimes both) parents. Some of the hardest working, toughest women I know I single parents; my grandmother, who 30 years after her passing is still one of the people in life that I admire the most, was a single mother in the 30's and 40's.

You know, when I heard and read that quote by Wierwille I thought it made a lot of sense, and it did, if only he had actually done that. I started to scratch my head when I heard him say things like "we don't have a text that says such-and-such, but it's got to be there". Or when he claimed with all confidence that "in the original" the first word in the bible is "God", when any Hebrew bible has the first word as beresheeth, usually translated as "in the beginning", the second word as barah, normally translated as "created"; only when you get to the third word do you find elohim, God. In my opinion, overall, Wierwille (or whoever he stole them from ) had it right with the keys to understanding and/or researching the bible. But they became inconvenient when the "keys" revealed different answers than the ones he liked. In my estimation, it's Wierwille's shoddy research that makes what he taught suspect, rather than any other consideration.

Where you at?

Where you at?

Where you at?

Where you at? Sorry: Lori Seyfried Cotton

Where you at?

Where you at?

He posts here, but I won't give up his handle...in case anonymity is important...perhaps he'll see this

I thought that I was the only GSer in Nebraska <_<

I just looked up "Abel" on Blue Letter Bible and it gave the definitions of the name Abel as "breath" or "vapor" based on Strong's. What source gives it as "empty"?

Not at all Seth...thanks for letting us in

The way it was last time, and the way I understand it will be this time, is the checks we just got are advances on a tax credit for tax year 2008, in other words, the returns that we'll do next Spring. I believe the only problem some of might have is if we have fewer eligible children next year than we had this year.

Yes, accepting Krishna as Lord will do that for you Cool poem

Wierwille wowed us by taking us to the Greek and showing us how gifts was italicized in one place and where it was in another, but did he draw the right conclusions? Maybe, maybe not. Verse 1 of I Corithians 12 says that God doesn't want us ignorant of "spiritualities", or things spiritual...Greek word pneumatikos. Wierwille rightly points out that that verse isn't talking about gifts. Verses 2 & 3 talk about having been idol worshipping Gentiles and that you can't call Jesus accursed through the spirit Verse 4 says that there are diversities of Gifts, but the same spirit Verse 5 that there are differences in administrations but the same Lord Verse 6 says that there are diversities of operations but the same God Seems obvious that the main point is that there's a lot of stuff out there and it all comes from the same source. Then verse 7 says that the manifestation (singular) of the spirit is given to every man to profit withal. A point could be made that the nine things that follow are not called specifically gifts (nor operations nor administrations), but nor are they called manifestations. Another way this verse could be worded could be: To every man, to profit withal, is given to manifest the spirit. In other words, every man can manifest the spirit; then 9 different ways that the spirit can be manifested are listed. Wierwille insisted that there were 9 distinct manifestations and that everyone could "operate" all nine. But the verses seem to clearly state that "to one" is given this, and "to one" is given something else. Wierwille's explanation that the phrases should be translated "for to one profit" is convoluted and is not supported by the text. I'm not defending Leonard; I don't know the specifics of his teachings, but Wierwille's is built from some shaky research.

Right, and then he taught about how if you were believing and didn't get results then you weren't really believing, even though you thought you were believing. How do you know you're believing? When you get results. Classic circular reasoning.

What is your source for this?

IMHO back in the good ol' days TWI was all about putting youngsters in charge of people's lives. Martindale himself was what?, 32 when he was made President of TWI?