What The Hay

"The Rapture" I believe is the term most frequently and typically used by other ministries. The word: "Rapture" is certainly not in the KJV, but there is a logical explanation for the usage of "Return" when speaking of the second coming of Jesus Christ. The use of "Return" was introduced in ATDAN when dealing with the subject: "Is Death a Gain" (p29-35). On p35 of ATDAN the word that is used in II Timothy 4:6 for "departure" is the Greek noun analusis and it means "returning" ... the words translated "depart" occur around 130 times in the New Testament ... translated from no less than twenty-two different Greek words. But the word analuo occurs only twice: in one verse it is rendered "depart" (in: Philippians 1:23) and as "return" (in: Luke 12:36) "when he will 'return' from the wedding". Philippians 1:23 says: (Paul) is in a strait bewtixt two, having a desire to "depart" (analuo - return) and to be with Christ; which is far better:. This is how TWI (I believe) came to refer to someone who is waiting the second coming of Christ as: "Awaiting the Return". Making a case there is more validity for refering to the second coming of Jesus Christ as in: "Awaiting the Return" over using the term: "Rapture" only depends if one prefers the biblical usage of a term over the contemporary use when one is refering to the same event.

Just more testimony to the paganism still surving in Christianity today. The early church was already impregnated with the errors of pagan philosophy long before this. The passages you cited were written centuries after Jesus Christ had ascended. Max Muller when writing regarding the first three centuries after Christ stated: "It was a period of religious and metaphysical delirium, when everything became everything - when Maya and Sophia, Mithra and Christ, Viraf and Isaian, Belus, Zarvan, and Kronos were all mixed up in one jumbled system of inane speculation. It was a period of mystic incubation ... a spirit of religious syncretism, to mould together thoughts which differed fundamentally common elements pervading all the multifarious religions of the world in an eager thirst for compromise. It was deemed the proper business philosopy, both in the East and West." All roads lead to Babylon.

No, assembling a flawless theology is not the problem. What people keep forgetting is there are only two religions - The truth of the Almighty God as expressed in His Word, and every other belief. What people have forgotten is that Babylon is the source of "every other belief" and mixing these two religions together is the source of the problem. The trinity, the dead are alive (reincarnation), baptism (water worship) etc. etc. etc. - all those doctrines carry the roots and pagan elements of the "Babylon mystery religion". The "mystery" has already been revealed. Those roads will only lead you to Babylon people, not to the flawless Word of God.

But ye beleive not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. - John 10:26,27 I don't believe Jesus was speaking of goats in those 2 verses there. But if you want to confuse the sheep with the goats, well that's not my problem.

The great majority of being able to live the more abundant life really all depends on exactly who YOU decide to fellowship with. Jesus Christ has not only called us to the more abundant life through him, but he has also called us to fellowship with one another. 1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. What it all boils down to is just who do you want to fellowship with? Do you want to fellowship with the goats or with the sheep? Now I can't speak for you or for anyone else. But for me, in my spiritual walk I want to have the sheep around me - not the goats. Now if you're a goat, I will fellowship with you - but only if decide to become a sheep. If you're truly someone who is listening to God and His Word, then you will always have the opportunity to become a sheep. But if you choose to be not anything but a goat, (how does one know who is a goat instead of a sheep?) the goats will always be hurting other sheep. Here is the way to tell someone who is a goat from the sheep. Everytime you try to share something from God's Word with them they go ... but(t) ... but(t) ... but(t) ... but(t). That's exactly what a goat does - using their horns to but(t) others. You see they can't receive the Word of God. They can't receive any exhortation in order to help themselves in the things of God. They can't receive any correction from the Word. Well I have let the goats hang around me before, but then it was only to "milk" them. I just milk the goats. I just don't allow them in anything I do to do anything - I just milk them - that's what I do. Now when it comes to wolves, well, that is a completely different type of critter than a goat. The bible talks about the wolves - those that come in sheeps clothing. I treat them totally different. Now wolves don't come looking like a wolf ... a wolf comes just as the bible says, dressed in sheep's clothing ... looking like a sheep. And boy, they look really nice you know. They usually come from one of two places. They come from the outside and come in, or they can even come from the inside. As Paul warned in Acts 20:28-30 even of your own selves would wolves would arise - speaking PERVERSE THINGS TO DRAW AWAY DISCISPLES AFTER THEMSELVES. Wolves will not spare the flock. Wolves are devouring animals - they devour sheep. If you are someone who is a sheep, for a wolf - you are lunch! Now whenever wolves come around, I just shoot 'em. Not physically mind you, but spiritually. How do I do that? I do that by not allowing them into my fellowship - that is with my fellowship with the sheep. I just tell them - LOOK, YOUR NOT WELCOME AROUND HERE! The vast majority of people in my fellowship are sheep. In most fellowships it is this way, unless there is not a pastor there to shepherd them - just a hireling. In John chapter 10 Jesus said a shepherd will give his life for the sheep. Oh yeah, he'll take a number of bullets! He will also take people not understanding him to protect the flock. But a hireling, as the bible says, when he sees a wolf coming he flees! Why? Because he doesn't have the well-being of the sheep in his heart - basically he's just there for the paycheck. Well, Jesus drove them all out. In Matthew 21:12 Jesus drove some of them out because if you want to have a clean fellowship you have got to get some things out of your fellowship. That's what you've got to do today - you got to get somethings out of the church. Now I AM not talking about people here. What I am talking about are THE THINGS that hang onto people - the things that people won't let go of. The thing I am trying to do in my church is keep a clean fellowship. Now if people want to hang and hold onto certain things that are not of God then it's those people that have to go. We're not against any person per se, or is this a "personality confict". What we're talking about is certain spirits trying to get into our church and into our fellowship. In verse 13 of Matthew 21 Jesus said: "And he said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of theives." The den of theives is a reference to Satan, as John 10:10 says he comes to steal, kill and destroy. That's what Jesus was talking about - demons were attempting to get into the temple of God to steal, kill and destroy. (Huh? you say?) Well, Jesus drove them all out. And what was the result? Matthew 21:14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them. The bottom line is, if you want to see a move of God then you are going to have to get some things out and also keep some things out of your fellowship with certain people. That is why the Holy Spirit will not move in some places - even in certain Christian places because of what "so called" Christian people have allowed in. The Holy Spirit is not going to fellowship with wrong spirits. He will not bless a house that allows any of those spirits to operate in the same house. Well if Jesus didn't allow any of that, then why should you? The bible says in 1 Corinthians 10 - it says, come ye out from among them, be ye separtate saith the lord. Verse 21 says, "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." If you got problems manifesting the more abundant life Jesus Christ came to make available, then just take a closer look at who you are choosing to fellowship with.

Funny. I just re-read the exact same section that another Dr. of Theology had just read, and NO WHERE does VPW ever blame the mother herself for causing the death of her child. But he does blame her fear. NOw one would think a Dr. of Theology could read much better than that. (Just where did I hear that before?)

I don't believe that fact matters much to any parent(s) who lost their kid(s) at Columbine. As I recall there was a similar situation like that which occurred in MN not long ago. Faith (doesn't matter if it is positive or negative .. Romans 10:17) comes by hearing. Faith, positive or negative still comes that way, even in 2005. But I can choose who or what I want to listen to just as easily as you can. But most people choose to listen to the "roar of the crowd." It's more like the roar of the lion rather than the crowd I believe. (1 Peter 5:8) Believing (whether it's negative or positive ) is nothing more than a seed one plants in their heart, and what one sows they ultimately reap - positive or negative - it just depends on what is sown. Plant a seed in the right conditions and it eventually sprouts and grows. That shouldn't be a mystery to anyone here. Jesus taught the same thing in the gospel - in the parable of the sower and the seed. The only reason Mike can't plant this seed and expect much growth is because the ground here is rock hard. It's hardened by tradition, by religion, hardened by politics, by gossip, backbiting, and similar things people here want to talk about and listen to. At best, a different seed got planted and was sprouted. Quite a remark coming from someone who doesn't understand (or believe in) the law of believing and therefore rejects it. But frankly speaking, I do think they understand the law of believing because they couldn't make such a remark if they didn't. They're just not being very truthful with us about it, so who's the one pushing the lie? But let's not find fault with them just because they are not being truthful. Most people aren't even true to themselves so why listen to them? It all starts right back at Romans 10:17. Well, that's what got us all in the soup to start with - listening to someone other than - well you know who...

You really said more than a mouthful there, VPW!

I have a jack - but I'm not going to help you! Or as you already aptly put it: I'd help you, but I don't have a jack either.

I would say it largely depends on what you are implying by the word "we" - the individual or humanity. I imagine in most cases it is probably both.

I also want to mention you can't upgrade directly from Windows 95 to Windows XP. Both the Home and Pro versions of Windows XP only allow you to upgrade from Windows 98, ME, NT Workstation 4 (w/service pack 6) or Windows 2000 (with or without service packs). If your running Windows 95, you can't simply "upgrade" to any version of XP, therefore you must perform a clean install. If you don't already have Windows XP - don't buy the upgrade version to upgrade that computer, it won't work. You'll need the full version of XP if you do decide to upgrade that computer. It's either that or you will need to upgrade it twice - first to one of these older versions of Windows (not Win 95) and then use the Windows XP upgrade. I would only recommend doing that if you already own the upgrade copy of Windows XP, but if you don't, then you'll need the full version and not the upgrade version of Windows XP. Of course a clean install also offers you the assurance you're wiping out all traces of any previous Windows problems. With a clean install your starting out with a clean Windows registry and a solid base of Windows system files. The major thing to keep in mind with Windows XP is that many programs that were originally written for Windows 3.1, Win 95 and Win 98 and also ME won't run properly under Windows XP. The biggest issue here is that some hardware devices written for those old operating systems just aren't compatible with Windows XP. I would also echo Bluzeman's comment plus make an additional comment as to why just swapping out a hard drive with XP on it won't work in another computer. You can't simply pull a hard drive out of another computer with XP already pre-loaded on it and expect it to work in your computer system. Windows XP included a new anti-piracy feature called Windows Product Activation (WPA). Although one isn't required to register Windows XP they are required to activate it. During the activation process, Windows XP transmits an encrypted file that serves as a "fingerprint" of key components in your system. If at some point in time you reinstall XP on the exact same hardware your usually OK as the activation server checks the new fingerprint against the one that is already stored in it's database. If they match then the activation is automatic. But if they don't match ... Let's just say the activation software is designed to prevent attempts to "clone" an activated copy of Windows XP and install it on another computer. The list of components included in this hardware "fingerprint" includes your video card, primary hard disks, disk controller, CD-ROM drive, network adapter, CPU and RAM. Now if your pulling a hard drive from another computer system with XP already installed on it and you are going to install it in another computer with the exact same hardware and setups then you might get by "swaping hard drives" that way, but then that typically isn't the scenario is it? You may want to consider installing a fresh copy of Windows XP on the computer that you have, but keep in mind there are a list of basic hardware requirements you must absolutely have per Microsofts spec sheet. You should first check to see if that computer has the following. A minimum configuration includes: 233 MHz CPU processor - Pentium/Celeron or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron or compatible. 64 MB of RAM 1.5 GB of Hard Drive space Video Adapter capable of Super VGA (800x600) resolution The recommended configuration is at least a 300 MHz CPU with 128 MB of RAM. You'll also need a mouse (or other pointing device) keyboard, and CD-ROM or DVD drive. I hope this helps. Best of luck with that computer.

I just got one question Mr. Floyd wanted me to ask you. If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding. HOW CAN YOU HAVE ANY PUDDING IF YOU DON'T EAT YOUR MEAT?!

I find it remarkable how people who were once involved in TWI are only earnest in their insistance on redefining the whole TWI experience to others, which they openly admit they do not see or understand it clearly themselves. That certainly doesn't leave one with much credibility for judging VPW's spirituality (whatever the heck that would be) or anybody else's for that matter. The only spirituality left for most people who were once involved in TWI is to either paint VPW, TWI, etc. completely with a black brush while others whitewash the entire experience. If that's what your spirituality is all about today, then your spirituality must be in pretty poor shape.

I'm not sure what point your trying to make by bringing up Jeffrey Dahmer and comparing him to VPW. I don't recall Mr. Dahmer claiming he cared about the Lord one way or the other. I don't see the point you're trying to make - other than the point is a classic example of an idiotic comparrison between two entirely and completely different people. In your last post you mentioned people should remember all the good he (Mr. Dahmer) did. I got some shocking news if you weren't aware of this already. Mr. Dahmer did contribute good to the benefit of our society. I read an article in 2000 where they were examining the brains of one of "his victims" and were totally astounded by the skill Mr. Dahmer used and diplayed in disecting the human brain. There are nuerosurgeons today studing his skills simply because they are astounded by his workmanship. Mr. Dahmer could have been one of the worlds greatest top notch nuerosurgeons himself - had he decided to use his knowledge of human anatomy and skill for good rather than evil. But I have found that to be true with any body of knowledge. Knowledge can be used for good or evil - for man's benefit or demise. It all depends on the man. Why do you think there's so much debate today about "stem-cell research"? I'm not so certain it is a debate over the advancement of human life or the ending of a human life, as much as it is the fear that someone ends up with having total control over a certain body of knowledge. I'm more convinced of the latter. God forbid a certain "body of knowledge" should ever get into the wrong hands! I guess we can say pretty much the same thing about biblical research too, huh?

I would say that is a more apt and accurate description of yourself Mr. Wordwolf (but then, I am fully aware that your not the only one) ... using all your effort toward obscuring evidence and misdirecting people's attention away from the truth. Of course it's not the truth regarding VPW I am refering to, but The Truth of Jesus Christ. You would prefer people forget the testimonies of the thousands whose lives were redeemeed and saved by the preaching of the Lord Jesus Christ through the ministry of VPW, in favor of the few hundred, who today for the most part care less about the Word of God, the Lord, and more about VPW! If that weren't so, they would be discussing the Lord more than VPW. But then, you will discount the tesimony of the thousands in favor of the few hundred - because the thousands haven't posted their personal testimonies at GSC? Well don't hold your breath and expect them to simply because they have a much larger vision for their life than your silly game. As I had stated in my last post: Ok, I can play this game! See the new thread for this game.... Thanks for adding that to the list of how one can also siphon the life from their spiritual family. I forgot that one.

Are you talkin' to me Alfakat? Why waste time asking who Victor Paul Wierwielle was. More importantly, Who are you? If you know who you are, who I am wouldn't matter to you anymore than what VPW matters to me.

As expected, Mr. Wordwolf completely missed the context of my last post. The only poor reader would be him, as he goes so far to use another opininated posters sentiments about VPW to try to prove VPW cared what others thougth of him. Well gee whiz then, VPW sure missed the boat fashioning a public persona and impressing me since I just stated: I am fully aware of Mr. WordWolf's reasons for posting on this thread. -- And this is just one of his reasons: Yeah well, before you and a host of others go about accusing VPW of that, take a good look at yourself in a mirror and ask the one in the mirror what they are doing and offering people today - the Word of God or merely anectdotes about VPW? Don't blame VPW for siphoning the life from your spiritual family just because your testimony of Jesus Christ is lost in a mire of anecdotes, chicken soup stories, three points and a poem. (With apologies to Dr. Suess).It's not VPW's fault the "spiritual family" has been reduced to a political, isolated fringe social activist group. In an effort to be contemporary and relevant, many have forsaken the Word of God altogether and have become nothing more than religious social clubs. For the most part, their mentalitiy is no different than TWI's "remnant mentality" today, which only ends up being a cloak for nothing more than religious pride. The question I would ask, 'Is that the vision and purpose I have for my life?' If it is, then I am sure I wouldn't want to join your church. Your church is too contemporary. A church is too contemporary when the eternal destinies of men and women are trivialized by anecdotes about people (like VPW), the pursuit of career and money, and the short-lived pleasures of this life. On the other hand some of us are committed to preaching the uncompormised Word of God, whether it is popular, politically correct or seen as intolerant. It's too bad that we're not going to change enough to statisfy your desires, huh.

Cripes... no matter what people have to say good or bad, they end up thinking and talking a whole heck of a lot about VPW, which is certainly a heck of a lot more than what I ever care to. I'm fairly certain anybody who was affiliated with TWI will not be thinking about or will they be discussing my life 20 years after I'm dead and gone (well ... with the possible exception of my spouse and my closest blood relatives perhaps - and even then I am not sure about that) and perhaps the same can be said for you? I guess that only proves we're not as special as VPW, huh? Do you think it mattered to VPW what people thought of him when he was alive? What makes you think this discussion would matter to him now? Maybe he's looking down from Heaven (or up from Hell depending on where you think he is) reading all this stuff and getting real upset over it? Well, I suppose all this stuff does matter - but only to those who mostly care about the accolades the world offers. But let's get honest about what it is that is really bugging you. It's not whether or not someone thinks VPW was good or bad, whether he was a heretic or a hero, but what you're really afraid of - is the fact nobody is gonna think of, remember or talk of me once I leave this cold, heartless world. I got a question for ya. Why should you care a rats a$$ about how much or how little people think of you - since so little do they think of you. I believe that was VPW's attitude when he was alive. He was DEAD to what the world thought and said of him and didn't marvel over the fact the world hated him (1 John 3:13). I am not saying he never reacted to it. There are times he did. He was a frail human being just like the rest of us. He just never marveled over it. THAT'S RIGHT BABY --- F*** THE WORLD! Especially what it thinks.

I guess it all depends on whether or not they turned the other cheek? :)-->

So what if VPW was wrong about the meanings for allos and heteros? That's what you're saying Raf? Contrary to what one critic recently stated, the meanings for the words allos and heteros are not critical to establishing whether 4 were crucified with Jesus or not. There are many other scriptures to consider which establish this fact, and the meanings for allos and heteros have little to do with those scriptures. I am not sure why this issue matters to people anyway, since most could care less whether 4 were crucified with Jesus or 2. The usual reaction to the 4 crucified with Jesus is, “What difference does it make?” (With that type of attitude toward the scriptures we are supposed to believe they care about the meanings of the words for allos and heteros?) Who are these critics trying to kid anyway? Well, let’s suppose ol’ VPW really was wrong in this situation. Just what would it change then? About the only thing it would change is: Which of the ‘others’ legs did the soldiers brake after they broke the legs of the first? Was it the legs of the malefactor or the legs of the robber: the ‘other’ of the same kind (or) the ‘other’ of a different kind? And I am not so sure just ‘how’ wrong VPW was to begin with on this issue like you want to believe he was. What I do know is exactly what it would take, and also the amount of time required it would take to prove him wrong on this point. That is the time you yourself said you didn’t have to give to this issue from your last post. The truth is, it would take a lot of time going into the scriptures and looking up every instance of the words for allos and heteros. We are talking about the possibility of dealing with at least 259 different scriptures, because there are 162 instances for allos and 97 instances for heteros. Of course this does not take into consideration or include the variations of other words from which allos and heteros stem, as I have only counted the instances of these root words. Heck, even I could be wrong in my counting of these instances since I used an old calculator that had sticky buttons to add them up, so you could easily prove me wrong just on this point alone. So much for my accuracy - based on my old calculator. But who today wants to look up over 250+ instances in the scriptures for allos and heteros and then compare their uses with one another to find out the exact meaning - and which usage carries the most weight comparatively? Not very many - if any. You yourself stated you didn’t have the time for it. Why? It’s too time consuming and unprofitable. There isn’t that much to gain here. It doesn’t make me any $ because my time is $$$. You (like many others) don’t believe the accuracy and integrity of God’s Word is worth your time or the return on the investment of your time. Your only concern today is with, and could well be: where are the results? Another poster, Mr. Hammeroni asked the same question and put it in another thread – the PFAL thread I believe. Well, there is at least one man I know and whom I also met that thought it was worth his time. Of course that doesn’t prove he was correct in every case or that he rightly divided the word of God in every situation. All it proves is he considered the integrity and accuracy of God’s Word to be worth his time and also worth the return on his investment of his time. He certainly can’t speak for you or for anyone else any more than I can. I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION MR. HAM – THE RESULTS ARE FREEDOM! Everything else in life without it results in bondage - whether it’s money, marriage, business, name whatever happens to be your worldly trip. The result is: knowing the truth, and the truth shall [absolute tense] make you free! Even if you spent your entire life gaining knowledge and then wrongly applied it, or if you listen to those who wrongly apply it (even those who were/are in TWI) well, it’s still bondage, not freedom. I was never called to a ministry of the inaccuracy of God’s Word, - that’s probably why I still rub a lot of people the wrong way, but at least I am free. It’s never too late to escape bondage. How? Just ask yourself the following: What has the integrity and accuracy of God’s Word cost me? That’s the question I am asking (I believe that’s the question another poster Mike might be asking - but only saying it differently: "Master PFAL") especially when the answer to that is hardly anything to nothing. That’s why the integrity of God’s Word has so little value and why it is only worth one’s ridicule today - and ridiculing those who still believe it has value. The majority of posters on this thread as well as the chat and discussion board here have proven it to themselves over and over. They don’t have “the time” for the integrity and accuracy of God’s Word any longer. Most only have the time to ridicule it and those who still want to believe it, so they remain in the bondage they mistakenly call freedom. Oh that’s right - you wanted me to prove that point too. All right, I will. Most think since they aren’t under Old Testament law anymore they are therefore free from carrying out the law. Since they are free from Old Testament law that means they don’t have to give anymore. The truth is, one is just as much a slave to money by not giving as they are a slave to money by giving out of fear – fearing if they don’t give God won’t bother to spit in their direction. I imagine that is supposed to be some previous TWI leader’s way of saying, Get more! The truth is, people have become slaves to money – either out of their greed or out of their fear, but both extremes are bondage. What is sad is people will continue to call either one of those extremes freedom - it just depends what side of the religious fence you wish to be on. I’ll call it what God’s Word calls it: bondage! But people are all caught up in the argument now with the guy on the opposite side of the fence, neither one realizing their own preferred personal religious extreme is nothing more than bondage. That’s how it is with most other spiritual matters as well. In one thread I posted time was speeding up. Well I am not so certain if it is time speeding up as much as it is the spiritual laws that God originally set in place in the beginning just now starting to catch up with people - making it appear time is speeding up. One thing is very certain and that is time is running out. We will all reap the results of what we have sown here – whether it is good or bad. In a short time we will reap the abundance of the same type and proportion of that which we have sown in our lives, as well as the lives of others. If you don’t like the results of what you have been receiving in life Mr. Ham, then maybe you should consider changing the seed you are sowing. It’s not too late. I am not just speaking to you and to others here for their benefit, but for myself as well. That’s the same problem the apostle Paul had with his flesh. Knowing what was right to do from his knowledge of the scriptures, but then not always doing it.

Fine if you disagree. However the expression, "turn the other cheek" is an orientalism. Now we may call it and also refer to it as a figure of speech, but it is an oriental expression. In the oriental culture backhanding someone was a gesture of contempt. It was how you treated someone beneath you in class and in status. Giving someone the back of your hand was saying (by gesture) "Remember your place! I am superiour to you!" That was how a father rebuked his son, a brother his sister, a husband his wife and a master his slave. Jesus advice in Matt. 5:39 to: "turn the other cheek" is loaded with symbolism. Despite what the pacifists might say, Jesus was not implying one should just submit to evil and let somebody slap them upside the other side of the head! (so then, it's not impling of the same kind). The expression "turn the other cheek" has at least two meanings. 1. I deny that I am inferior to you and I demand you acknowledge me as your equal by striking me a forehand blow [striking someone on the right-cheek with their backhand was really an insult, as the right side was the side of blessing] (and) 2. As your equal I have the right to strike you back. Turning the other cheek could have been Jesus' admonition to the people under oppression by the Romans and other class structures at that time to stop being passive and to start resisting - but to never be the aggressor. This verse is not a verse about pacifism, but a verse about repaying in kind. Jesus himself believed in self-defense. In Luke 22:36 he said, ... he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. He wasn't talking about agression here but rather self-defense. However I believe (and I am sure you will agree) a slap on the cheek is not a life-threatening attack, but rather it is intended as an insult. What Jesus was saying in this verse by "turning the other cheek" is that we should not return insult for insult. We should therefore resist the temptation to return an insult by "turning the other cheek". If the word 'allos' for "other" is used in this verse here, than it can mean of a different kind - especially when one takes into consideration the oriental figure implied in this verse.

I believe the expression "turn the other cheek" is a figure of speech here in the Word. If that is the case, then the definition VPW provided for allos may (or it may not) be the correct one. But there are certainly much better ways to do a word study than simply point out a scripture in which a particular Greek word appears to prove a particular point. (I'll give you an illustration of this at the end of this post.) And I think you will agree. So for further consideration, the word "allos" is translated and it appears translated in the bible as: another - 68 times more - 1 time one - 4 times other - 74 times other man - 4 times other things - 3 times some - 11 times another man's - 1 time otherwise - 1 time another (with tis) 1 time Allos is also translated with a long o (allws) or short o (allos). With the long o it is translated as: otherwise once. Heteros likewise has a long o and short o. (ws or os). With the long o it is also translated as: otherwise 1 time. Heteros (were it is with the short o) appears translated as: another - 42 times else - 1 time other - 41 times strange - 1 time another place - 1 time another psalm - 1 time next day - 2 times other thing - 3 times one another - 1 time some other - 3 times Other forms of heteros include: Heterodidaskaleo = teach another doctrine - 1 time Heteroglossos = of another tongue - 1 time Heterozugeo = be unequally yoked together - 1 time. What I found interesting to note is that heteros is translated as: "strange" and not as other or another. It appears this one time in Jude 7 - Even as Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange = heteros flesh... Depending on your POV it would appear then that heteros could be refering to the same kind, but I am not sure if the "strange flesh" this verse is refering to is specifically refering to homosex, (it could be implying having sex with the same flesh, which would be strange) or if here it is refering to having sex with animals. That could also mean - strange flesh (which would then be of a different kind - a different flesh). Perhaps context and usage in the Word of God defines the meanings of these terms far more than any hard and fast rules someone sets forth? I will admit a word study on these two different words certainly warrants a much closer observation than anyone here has done so far. From what I've seen, just picking out a single verse in the bible in which the word allos or heteros appears I don't believe is going to give someone specific insight on the exact definition of either one of these terms. We readily see this from the record in Jude 7 - by handling the Word of God from a simplistic cursory study of a single verse of scripture. Likewise it won't be achieved by going to any other verse in which these words appear and doing the same simplistic study - unless one chooses to do a much broader word study on these words to determine their exact meaning and definition.

Let's see if I have got this straight - allos - another when there are more than two involved. heteros - another when there are only two involved. These two definitions seem to be fairly consistent from what I have read. It appears the question lies in which one of those meanings, allos or heteros, is refering to another of the same kind or another of a different kind? I think that is where the inconsistancy lies and where the confusion is steming from?

Well that is a good definition of debt, but it doesn't answer the question whether or not debt is good or bad. Actually it is neither. Most people's financial problems are caused by going along with the crowd and trying to keep up with the Joneses. But the real reason people struggle financially is largely due to the fact they do not know the difference between an asset and a liability. That may sound absurdly simple, but most people have no idea how profound this rule really is. Accountants and financial professionals do not even agree with these definitions, the main reason for the arguement over debt among people. Well if you really want to be confused, look up the words "asset" and "liability" in the dictionary. The definitions may sound good to a trained accountant, but for the average person it makes no sense. Accounting is probably the most boring subject in the world and it may also be the most confusing. But if a person wants to be rich it could be the most important subject. The only way to teach a boring and confusing subject is to make it simple. In the simplest terms, assets put money into your pocket while liabilites take it out. What is the simplest is usually the most useable. Illiteracy both in numbers and words is the foundation of financial struggle. The rich are rich because they are more literate in areas than those people who struggle financially. To become rich and maintain wealth one finds it important to be financially literate in both words as well as numbers. Rich people aquire assets. Sometimes they borrow money to do that. The question becomes, are they unwise for doing so? Not when they aquire assets when one is defining assets in its simplest term. The poor and the middle class aquire liabilities, but they think they are assets. Some even borrow money to do that. This is the reason they are poor, stay poor, and become even more poor. Words and the definitions of words mean very little. That's the reason for doctrinal debates. What people often forget is what matters the most - and it's the story that counts. When dealing with finances numbers alone mean little, just as words alone mean little. In financial reporting reading numbers is looking for the plot, the story - the story where the cash is flowing. In 80 percent of most families the financial story is a story of working hard in an effort to get ahead. It's not because they don't make money, but because most spend their lives buying liabilities instead of assets. It's the cash flow that tells the story. It is the story of how a person handles their money, what they do after they get the money in their hands. I hear, "Where do I start? I'm in debt so I need to make more money." But more money will often not solve the problem, in fact, it may actually accelerate the problem. Money often makes obvious our tragic human flaws. Money often puts a spotlight on what we do not know. That is why you hear of these people who often come into a sudden windfall of cash - an inheritance, a pay raise, or lottery winnings soon return to the same financial mess, if not a worse mess they were in before they received the money. Money accentuates the cash flow pattern running through your head. If your pattern is to spend everything you get, most likely an increase in cash will just result in an increase in spending. Thus the saying, "A fool and his money is one big party." Many people believe their home is their biggest asset. Now I realize for many people it is their dream as well as their largest investment, and owning your own home is certainly better than nothing. If I were to buy a bigger home - a more flashy house it would not be an asset, it would be a liability since it would take more money out of my pocket. So here is the argument I put forth. I don't expect most people to agree with it because a nice home is an emotional thing. When it comes to money, high emotions tend to lower financial intelligence. From personal experience money has a way of making every decision emotional. 1. Most people work all their lives paying for a home they never own. In other words, most people buy a new house every so many years, each time incurring a 30 year loan to pay off the previous one. 2. Even though people receive a tax deduction for interest on mortgage payments, they pay for all their other expenses with after-tax dollars - even after they pay off their mortgage. 3. Property taxes. Property taxes usually increase. When a couple retires this can even put even a more financial strain on their budget and the strain can make people feel forced to move. 4. Houses do not always go up in value. There are people who owe close to a million dollars for a house that today will only sell for $700,000.00. 5. The greatest loss of all is from missed opportunities. If all your money is tied up in your house, you may be forced to work harder because your money continually goes out the expense column in property taxes, insurance, maintenance and utilities. All too often a house only serves as a vehicle for incurring a home-equity loan to pay for mounting expenses - expenses that are liabilities and not assets. The end result in making a decision to own a house in lieu of starting an investment portfolio early on impacts an individual in at least the following three ways: 1. Loss of time, during which other assets could have grown in value. 2. Loss of additional capital, which could have been invested instead of paying for high maintenance expenses directly related to the purchase of the house. 3. Loss of education. Too often, people count their house, savings and retirement plan as all they have in their asset column. Because they have no money to invest, they simply do not invest. What this does is cost them investment experience. Most never become what the investment world calls a "sophisticated investor". And the best investments are usually sold to the "sophisticated investors," who then turn around and sell them to those who play it safe. I certainly am not saying, "Don't buy a house." What I am saying is, "Understand the difference between an asset and a liability. When you want a bigger house, first buy the assets that will generate the cash flow to pay for the house otherwise your whole life will be spent in the "rat-race." Your expenses will always seem to keep up with your income, never allowing you to invest in assets. As a result, your liabilities such as your mortgage and credit card debts will usually become larger than your assets. The middle class always finds itself in a constant state of financial struggle. Their primary income is through wages, and as their wages increase so do their taxes. Their expenses tend to increase in equal increments as their wages increase; hence the phrase, "the rat-race." They treat their home as their primary asset instead of investing in income-producing assets. The pattern of treating your home as an investment and the philosophy that a pay raise means you can purchase a larger home or spend more is the foundation of today's debt-ridden society. This process of increased spending throws families into greater debt and into more financial uncertainty, even though they may be advancing in their jobs and receiving pay raises on a regular basis. In reality it is nothing more than high risk living caused by weak financial education.

It sounds to me like you’ve decided to start on the right track. Ok then. How about we start by questioning what was recently stated here by some ‘doctor of theology’: Some doctor of theology wants us to accept this statement as being the whole truth, but then neglects to answer (if the statement were true) what made VPW change his mind about tithing then? One can readily see we are not being told the complete truth but only part truth. God’s Word says we are to put off lying and speak every man truth (not part truth) with his neighbor (Ephesians 4:25). Perhaps some would accept the statement as true if they never met VPW. I never heard VPW teach it was wrong to tithe or to give. That’s a new one. The more honest question would be: Does the bible ever teach us it is wrong to tithe or give? In some situations it does. The bible says we are not supposed to give grudgingly or out of necessity. That would certainly be one situation (1 Corinthians 9:7). But the bible doesn’t teach us that we are not supposed to give at all - as some ‘doctor of theology’ here wants to teach it. The Greek word for necessity in that verse is: anagke, which means: must or need. One could use the word MANDATORY and it would convey the same meaning. What we are supposed to understand is some doctor of theology here is now teaching us it is MANDATORY not to give. Well, that’s just as hypocritical as someone teaching you if you don’t give at least 10% (preferably more) God won’t bother to spit in your direction - or whatever direction you want Him to spit in! That’s all these “Doctors of Theology” people want to teach other people how to do - how to lie and be a hypocrite, and how to grieve the holy spirit and how to be a slave to money like they are. Well, you’re just as much a slave to money by not tithing or by not giving as you are by giving out of fear! You know: If I don’t give at least 10% or more God won’t spit in my direction! OH PHBTTTTTTTTT to all that bull-ony! You say you can’t afford to tithe or give? Look, you’re supposed to be a faithful steward of that which God has given you. If you’re telling yourself you can’t afford to tithe or give from what ever little it is you have now, what makes you think you can do it when you have more income? You’re just lying to yourself (thereby grieving the holy spirit) saying you can only afford to tithe when you have more income. What you’re really saying is (and is truth) is that you’re a lousy steward of what God has already given you! But nobody ever wants to hear that coming from somebody else – let alone admit it to themselves. More money is not the answer to your problems as most people think it is. The truth is, more money would only cripple and crush you because the more income one has the more is required of them to faithfully steward what they have. That’s not just WTH blowing smoke up your … whatever - that’s the Word of God! See Luke 12:42-48 (especially noting verse 48). That’s right. Unto whom much is given, of him much will be required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. I’ll let you all in on a secret, that is, if you don’t know it already. MONEY is not the most valuable possession you have. TIME is your most valuable possession. Money can be recovered: time can not. I don’t know when the lord will return or if he will return with a PFAL book. The Word of God doesn’t mention the exact time and what he will return with. All I know is today is closer to that appointed day than yesterday, and tomorrow will be even closer still. You and I only have “so much time” and it is also valuable time that none of us can recover. The clock is constantly ticking and all of our time here on this earth is rapidly running out. Scientifically I have learned it is now running out at an exponential rate. If you want to argue and squabble in a debate about it, I might find the time to put you in touch with the scientists who conducted the study. I don’t have to argue with them because I realize it from God’s Word anyway. Whether or not someone wants to spend their time mastering PFAL is really up to them. I can’t argue somebody into doing it or out of doing it for that matter. Nor can you. These PFAL threads go on forever it seems. I can only be the master and the steward of my own life. I can’t be the steward of anybody else’s life nor can you. That is why you will never change anybody by arguing with them. You can only change yourself. You will find it easier to change yourself than to get somebody else to change by arguing with them. I will say, if you have been taught the integrity of God’s Word to any degree, you better be prepared and be prepared well. Why? Luke 12:47 “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” Now many people might read into that verse and believe it is the lord who will beat them for not preparing. No. If you don’t prepare yourself with the truth of God’s Word, it is the world that will beat you with its many stripes! The whole key to the more abundant life lies in stewardship – stewardship of your time, your money and of everything else. So if you aint got “it” you can’t blame VPW, LCM, TWI, PFAL or anybody or anything else for the lousy stewardship of your affairs. But that’s exactly what most people do. Then they quit and go looking for another ministry or some other ‘doctor of theology’ or somebody else who will lead them into this “more” abundant life. They go looking for “more” thinking “more” will solve all their problems. Then they lay the blame on somebody or on something else whenever it doesn’t. If you want to see “more” of the more abundant life, start looking at the last place where few people ever dare to look – themselves. Thinking some ministry or minister or some doctor of theology, or a psychiatrist, or by having “more” money and owning “more” things etc. will make you feel “more” secure in life when you can’t steward your own affairs is lying to yourself – plain and simple. And lying grieves the holy spirit – remember? I’ve learned the more abundant life doesn’t exist in the questioning of other people or other things, as much as it does in questioning myself and my stewardship – of my time, my money and everything else that comes along in my life. Just some ‘spiritual food’ for thought here.