Leaderboard

Just wondering....was it really fun to stay at the YMCA....??

I have framed my answers to several questions/comments/posts on GSC the last few years thus: the bible is an anthology of stories. Do I take those stories literally? Definitely not. Do I believe I understand... anything... adequately or fully? Of course not. The closest those stories come to factual truth, IMO, is taking them as human records of the times (histories) of humans in the context of the lives and cultures (anthropology and archeology) at the time they were recorded.

Wrote out a long reply. Decided it wasn't worth it. Deleted it. Main idea: WW said what I was trying to say about "originals" and I would gladly adopt his language given the original question was about what HE meant.

That's not an answer, it's a rationalization.

Fine Rocky because I don't believe in the premise either at this time. I'm opened to being proven wrong though if there was some empirical evidence for the existence of God. I'd have to say that it was a rhetorical question in that I wanted to make a biblical point in light of the discussion around the difficulty with translating languages. Also, it's obvious that the answer to the question can only come from God himself and what is the probability of that happening other than having to wait until the afterlife. I figure by then, it'll be too late to matter. It may be that the question might be enough for someone to begin asking other questions about the bible and come to a conclusion similar to your inclination stated above.

My only response to YOU, Rocky , is that whatever other choices there might be, they should come from the bible as that was the context in which I was speaking. Now would be a good time to ask this question which should not be a problem in this thread. Why did an all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful divine being, when wanting to make known his one and only perfect will to all humans for the thousands of years he knew would eventually exist and across thousands of languages and dialects (which he's responsible for because of the Tower of Babel incident) and cultures that would spread throughout the whole world, choose to do so in a written way that has proven to be so confusing and contentious and cherry picked?

The camel/rope thing. Lamsa had it as "rope" in his Bible. The Aramaic Interlinear twi put out had it as "rope." Naturally, one can show suspicion on both sources, as it's possible both were, ah, compromised. But I compared the words side by side in my college library. They had a copy of the book "The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels." I eyeballed both words carefully and could not find a difference between the two. Most people can simply conclude that it was hyperbole and get the meaning, and, either way, it is still hyperbole. Neither a rope nor a camel can fit in the eye of a needle, and with man, this is impossible. That was the point regardless, although I prefer having a correct translation either way.

[WordWolf in boldface and brackets] "Concerning your reference to wolves above, you did not suggest in this case that the word should go untranslated but that it should just be translated “jackal.” For example: Genesis 49:27, ““Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf jackal: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil.” " [The point I was making there is that MIStranslating something is serious business. So, putting a word there because we absolutely have to put a word there can cause a big problem for someone. So, when choosing what to do when translating, it's a lot harder than it looks.] "Concerning “anothen,” leaving it out would make the verse read as follows: John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Two problems with this is that it’s stating the obvious and also Jesus does go on to describe being born two ways – born of the flesh and born of the spirit. I don't see the big problem with this Greek word. Any disagreement with “anothen” seems to be whether it means anew or again. “Anew” implies something made new usually as an improvement over the old while “again” implies something happening a second (or more) time. Nicodemus obviously took “anothen” to mean born “again” as shown in his reply about entering the womb a “second time.” Since this was not what Jesus meant, he explains to Nicodemus the two kinds of births – to be born of the flesh and born of the spirit. The spirit would fit with “anothen” meaning “anew” as it is an improvement over being born of the flesh. " [A) You missed the previous discussion, sorry. What I proved was translating it with a placeholder word that meant nothing didn't change the verse itself because Nicodemus was responding to a man being born when he was old- a MAN being born, not a baby. BTW, the discussion of the Greek word was not with "anew" vs "again", which are largely synonymous in this context. A quick check with a concordance would show that the word "anothen" in all its usages/consistently supports rendering the word "FROM ABOVE" and not "again". So, did Nicodemus understand the word "anothen" or its Aramaic equivalent to be "again/anew" or "from above"? For the sake of that account, it actually didn't matter which he was told because he jumped on the meaning of the rest of the sentence, and he could have been told either or neither and he wasn't listening. In that instance, I didn't leave the word out- I left it untranslated or even unintelligible, and the meaning was retained. Humans often pick and choose what they hear in a sentence, skip something else, and react. Often, that means they skipped the important part, and often will later say they were never told the rest of the sentence. Looking at the account, it seems to me Nicodemus did exactly that. Humans are largely the same here and now and in Nicodemus' time. If you want to get into this account more, we probably should open another thread.] -------------------------------------------- "Am I missing something here? What "original" do you and Hampson think exists? The Greek word “kunarion,” meaning “a small dog,” is used only 4 times in the NT, and they are all found in the account of the Canaanite woman in Matthew and Mark. Now the other Greek word for dog, kuon, meaning a dog that is universally despised in the East, is clearly used that way 5 times in the NT. One of those usages is in Matthew 7:6 which is something like what Jesus said to the woman. It is, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Similar ideas but 2 different Greek word used for “dogs.” I'm interested in why this is. " [I've been spending the last decade or so with the subject "translating between 2 languages" being something I can't avoid. (I don't live in an English-speaking country, which means I'm either studying the other language, dealing with things not from here, or dealing with translations, in nearly every case.) I've seen a number of people work hard to translate between 2 modern languages with some common roots, and sometimes they conclude that something can't be translated across to English or from English! Some things are idiosyncratic to a language, to a culture, to a dialect of a language. For those who doubt this, there's a song that runs almost 9 minutes long, in Spanish. Sometimes subtitles are available in English. "Que dificil es hablar en Español", or "Oh, how hard it is to speak Spanish!" The song is written by native Spanish speakers. The song is written from the perspective of a US citizen who tries to study Spanish, who studies one dialect of Spanish from one country, then discovers he has to learn Spanish all over again if he visits a different Spanish-speaking country. Expressions that are clear and innocent in one dialect become insults in another, and he's chased out of a greengrocer when he tries to ask about the fruit they carry. Some words are innocent in one dialect, and in another, will get you in trouble. Some words mean different things in different countries, sometimes MANY of them. (The word "chucho" has so many different localized meanings that he was able to construct a sentence using all of them, and the sentence was impenetrable without a word-for-word breakdown.) All of that is about differences between dialects of CONTEMPORARY SPANISH, spoken right now in different countries, often neighboring countries. Why did I bring this up? For the benefit of anyone who missed the point, I'll spell it out. Translation work can be very difficult. Even simple prepositions can be a problem, and radically change a sentence with one wrong preposition. Going from one dialect used RIGHT NOW in a language to the same language used RIGHT NOW in a neighboring country with a different dialect can be very difficult. Going back and forth between English and Spanish can be very tricky. I've heard of one tourist who tried to ask directions and offended the local because they missed a connotation that was missing from their language. (In English, "you" is one word, singular or plural, regardless of who "you" is/are. In Spanish, there are at least THREE words for "you" that are used. One is for the plural of either singular. The other 2 usages are singular, referring to one person. But be careful which one you use. If you use "usted", you're being formal. It's good for business meetings and for strangers. If you use "tú", you´re being casual. It's good for friends and people you're trying to consider friends (i.e. in a bar, meeting someone.) There's a word in Spanish that doesn't have ANY direct English translation that relates to this- "tutear". That means to use the informal "tú" with someone when you should have used "usted." People can easily be offended if they hear you do that- although most will cut a tourist slack if they realize the tourist just has trouble trying to use the language. I made a joke once, here. I asked someone if I could greet their dog. They agreed. I squatted down, petted the dog, and talked softly to the dog- to indicate by tone how I was friendly. I referred to the dog using "tú". When I stood up, somewhat tongue in cheek and smirking, I apologized to the dog owner for "tuteando" the dog. After all, I'd just met his dog, and there I was, using the familiar when addressing him. He (the dog owner) accepted my apology, also smirking. The dog didn't care either way. Still, being polite rarely hurts, and it was funny at the time. It appears to me that Hampson has actually put in the work. You know, like vpw claimed to have done sometimes, but in Hampson's case, for real. So, the man spent some time formally studying Koine Greek. I'm fairly confident neither you or I formally studied Koine Greek. I know enough to get by if I use a concordance, interlinear and lexicon, but that's not the same as formal study. He seems to be making a point that, in Koine Greek, there's a big difference between using "kuon" and "kunarion" in a sentence. I've seen enough MIStranslating between English and Spanish to believe it's true. He said the difference is in the CONNOTATION of "kunarion." It doesn't have the same connotations as "dogs" would in modern English. I'm well aware that translating between modern English and modern Spanish has problems of exactly that type, where nearly synonymous words mean different things. I got into a whole discussion years ago discussing the differences between the words for "grandmother" in English and in Spanish. They may not matter at all to you, but if you were being referred to as "grandmother" in both languages, you'd want to know that the "correct" word was used in each language. (A native Spanish speaker settled on "Abuelita" for Spanish, and "Grandma" in English. "Abuelita" literally is a diminutive of "abuela", grandmother, but has a CONNOTATION of more familiarity than "abuela." I also had to try to articulate the difference between "grandma" and "granny" to a non-English speaker, which took 2 people to explain, since the denotation is the same but the connotations are not, not exactly.) So, in Spanish, making a diminutive of a word doesn't always connote a diminutive of something, a different meaning can be conveyed. Hampson said the same thing happens when switching from "kuon" (an insult) to "kunarion." Based on my misadventures in Spanish, I'm ready to believe that. (In one localization, a singular word that's a strong insult stops becoming an insult when used in a plural diminutive and applied to a swarm of children fleeing school at the end of the school day.) I'm aware that, in Japanese, there's a word that normally translates to "idiot" and doesn't mean that when, say, a girl uses it when addressing a boy she's dating- the context making it clear she doesn't mean the same thing. If I knew all sorts of languages, I'm sure I could cite many more examples across the spectrum. So, if a word, translated directly, denotes the same thing literally but the CONNOTATION is completely different, what do you do? From what I've seen, experts don't translate it directly. In some cases, they go around translating it quite a distance. That's just Spanish to English. Hampson was saying that the same thing can happen in Koine Greek, and I'm prepared to believe him. Then the question becomes, what DO we do in this instance? Facing several options, none of which are optimal, he picked the one that was least problematic. I followed him through his steps, and I think he was reasonable. It might have been done in exactly the same way if it was a problematic words in Spanish being translated to English- or vice versa. ]

Disagree. I'm only speaking for myself here, but I think the real problems with understanding stem from 2 things. The smaller problem is expecting the Bible to be a textbook written for a modern audience. We, here and now, would prefer that, but it would have been impenetrable for centuries. (Different styles benefit different people and work better for different times and different mindsets.) The larger problem really is having preconceived notions about what it is SUPPOSED to say, and cherry-picking to try to support that rather than read the whole thing to find out what it actually says. That's actual work, and requires one to double-check one's denomination. (Then again, I was already starting to do that while in twi before the splits happened, and I wasn't in terribly long.) If you're taught, say, there's Heaven, Hell, Purgatory and Limbo, then if you even open your Bible, you're likely to just look for something that might look like it supports precisely that position, rather than making the effort to get the whole picture from the Bible. A tertiary problem is awful translations- but a lot of those stem from a translator with the larger problem. I've found that reading an interlinear often corrects those pretty easily and painlessly.

Nah, it was making the 4 letters with your arms that was a hoot.

Well, Mark didn’t make the same claim that Luke made about an accurate account. Ancient “historians” did history differently than historians do it today. I don’t think they were as concerned with accuracy the way we are. It’s anachronistic to apply modern expectations and standards to those ancient “historians.” I’m not even sure it’s fair to call Mark a historian. When I have a minute, I’ll pull some sources for you explaining this.

Yeah, I don’t think you were intentionally trying to deceive or entrap, but your tone could be seen as contentious and disingenuous. It’s the tone and style. Believers don’t want to engage with it, I suspect. The text I was referring to is the Bible, not your text. And that text, the Bible, unequivocally has mixed messages and contradictions and errors. The harder the line on harmony, the more the contradictions arise. I still have lots of questions about theology. Genuine, honest questions. I try to compose my questions as plainly as possible. Answers to these questions are limited only to the number of people who answer - theologies vary widely. Most of my questions are ignored, but I’m always grateful to those who answer as plainly and as honestly as I ask.

Happy Thanksgiving to All!

In case anyone is confused, I'd like to clarify. oldiesman confirmed there was a lawsuit that was filed. He did not confirm the lawsuit had merit or that it was factually correct. But, as a point of history, he confirmed that people were saying that at the time.

For many people, recovery is an on-going process. Think in terms of something like weight loss. You don't reach your target weight and suddenly abandon the effort. I think there's a bit of a parallel in the comparison, but maybe that's just me.

Undertow: Happy 8th Birthday | Charlene L. Edge

I've met her in person. She's real and her posts are authentic.

Excerpts from the first draft for a totally revised burnt orange book “Power For Materialistic Living Today”, page 3, Introduction: The Materialistic Life …This post literally changed my life. My extraordinary life first began on Myspace, plodding ahead with keeping up with the Joneses; but somehow, I lacked a very materialistic life. Then one time I was especially alerted when I read on social media that there was a man with a Th.M. (a degree in Materialistic Theology) who said he had come to give us an even more materialistic life. I was stupefied into submission. I looked about on social media and compared my current Facebook account where I post mostly pictures of myself. I could see that many online communities were manifesting a more materialistic life than I was. Thus, I earnestly began to pursue the question, “If this materialistic specialist came so that men and women might have a more materialistic life, why is it that my selfies on Facebook do not manifest even a materialistic life?”

My most vivid memory is the pervasive odor of, let's say, the aftermath of digestion. And the need to light candles to dissipate said odor.

My official involvement in TWI was brief. My emotional involvement is another story. I was introduced to The Way in late December 1986. It took a lot of persuading, but I finally sat through the class nearly two years later. By then I had sat through dozens of hours of teaching tapes and Way music was part of my regular diet. I even taught a couple of times: Before I took the class! I was not abused in or by The Way. No one hurt me. No one stole my girlfriend or wife. I parted with my money voluntarily. i left because I was loyal to those who were fired en masse in the spring of 1989. Leaving The Way did not affect my worship life one whit. I was of the belief that we who were cast aside were the ones who were truly most loyal to the Word as taught to us by Dr. Wierwille. In the decade that followed, I got married and became a fellowship coordinator at our offshoot in the Bronx. I got divorced and had a crisis of conscience. I tried hard to stay true to Biblical principles no matter who taught them, and to reject non-Biblical principles (again, no matter who taught them). I ceased being loyal to any particular group, defending and challenging various offshoots at various times. I also began attending mainstream churches after I moved to Florida. After my divorce, I discovered this online community of former Way believers. In my naiveté, I guess I must have come off as quite arrogant and inflexible. Honestly, I was not emotionally prepared for the realization that people had such a wide variety of experiences. I think I grew with this site, both in my understanding and in my flexibility, at least when it comes to doctrine. Today I am not a Way believer. I am not a believer in any supernatural religion. I am a humanist: I believe it is incumbent on man to identify and seek to solve the problems we create, so that our progeny can live in a future worth living for. I can work with anyone who has the same belief, whether that belief is driven by an underlying belief similar to mine or by the belief that a Higher Power demands it of us. So be it. I am writing this (and opening this thread) because I wanted to articulate a simple truth: The "members" of this web community are not an ideological monolith. The only thing we have in common appears to be that we sat through some version of a class that The Way called "foundational." Some of us experienced more. Some of us, far less. We are not all here because we were hurt, though some of us were. We are not all here because we are bitter, though some of us are. We are not all here because we hate God or the Word. Some of us love both with all our hearts. Others would no sooner hate God than Godzilla, for all their ability to demonstrate their existence. We are in various states of personal recovery. Honestly, I'm here out of habit. I've been done with this stuff for years. But now and then I am called upon to explain some of the things I wrote when I was young, idealistic, and enthusiastic about my faith. What about the Blue Book review and Actual Errors? The Blue Book Review (look it up) is a sincere effort by a sincere Christian to weed out truth from error in the works of VPW. Actual Errors, while limited in scope and purpose, was apparently QUITE influential despite itself. It was, at its heart, a defense of the class and the collaterals: A defense against an effort to exalt them above the Word we purported to believe. It was never intended to be an attack on PFAL. It was intended to be a recognition of the obvious: That PFAL was not perfect. That discussion died out years and years ago. But not and then it comes back up, and my name is attached to it. So now and then I remind people what it was all about. From the horse's mouth, as it were. Anyway, back to this thread: There is no single "why I left the way" experience. There is no single "why I'm still out" experience. We are individuals. We are here to give a reason for where we are today. Just ask us.