Keith

My best response for this is that David (and others) sinned many times and from what I can tell God for him. But he also recorded his sins in the word for all of us to see. They serve as examples of what we are not supposed to do. He also received justice for the sins he committed. We are told in one place to forget the past, but in another to remember what we came out of. That's not two faced. We forget the past in that we no longer let it have any hold over us. We remember the past so we can be thankful for God's deliverance from what we came out of.

Chockfull, you have a good point. I don't disagree with it totally. I think the difference is are you seeking payment in terms of justice or bitterness. In the OT wasn't the thief to pay back seven times what was taken. Going back to my over used car example. I may forgive you for wrecking my car, but still expect you to pay for the damage. One is my decision, the other is just, right and proper. Thinking of it as a worse crime, lets say I was abused as a child. I can carry bitterness and anger around and fail to get on with my life or I can forgive them for the abusing me, and get on with my life. But I don't think that precludes making a report of it so justice can be served and for the protection of future children.

Well, said.

If you are presenting facts, especially to protect others, I don't concider that a form of bitterness or unforgivenss. There is a difference between doing so in anger or bitterness and doing so to provide information and safty to others. I tend not to say that people are not walking in unforgiveness. I can't judge their heart. But I do know that unforgiveness will eat away at you. Our forgiveness doesn't mean that justice is not or should not be served. From what I can see that decision resides in this world, with the courts, in the next with God. Unforgiveness is an attitude. I've seen many accounts on this site regarding some very bad things that have happened to people. Some is presented without anger and bitterness. I won't say they are a pleasure to read, but it is these posts that I find most helpful in understanding what went on. And yes, they do sometimes make me angry. Some posts are so full hate and bitterness that it almost burns your eyes to read it. I usally don't find much understanding in these. In fact they sometimes make me doubt what they are saying. If they are recent happenings I understand the anger. However, I find myself concerned for the person when the event happened years ago, and even more, when it was to someone else. It is hard to see the facts through the hate and bitterness. I read Kris Skedgell's book "Losing the Way". It opened up a lot of things to my understanding, There were a lot feelings expressed, but I didn't sense in it an attitude of unforgiveness. And I don't feel she would want to kill any of the people involved. Which does not mean that I don't think she went through a time when might have thought that way. There are some people, who when I read their posts, I think if they had half a chance they might literally kill the people they are talking about.

As we define forgiveness today I would say your are correct. However I don't think that's the meaning originally. And in regards to a debt, if I tear up the paper for the debt you owe me, I am basicly saying I no longer expect payment from you. My decision. Believe it or not I've had people who I've told to just forget the debt, and they still keep trying to pay me. They have not received my forgiveness of their debt. Their choice. I'm not sure that the following is really worth anything you can decide. But we have two different definitions of forgiveness being talked about. From what I can see those expecting the need for the Board to ask forgiveness before they forgive them seem to be defining forgiveness as I remember TWI defining. While other's are defining it closer to how most (that I know of) Christian groups define it.

I have never seen forgiveness as excusing something. Our covenant relationship with God includes his cleasing us of all unrighteousness when we ask for forgivness. But forgivness, in this case, is something that I do. Your asking for forgivness is something you do, and by doing so you receive my forgiveness. From what I understand the board has never asked for forgiveness so while I may forgive them, they have not received my forgiveness. Most likely they have not asked forgiveness from God so I doubt that they have recevied it from Him either. Asking for forgiveness includes the idea of repentance and desire to change what you are doing. As far as I can tell, through Christ everyone has been forgiven, but we don't get the results for that forgiveness until we accept Christ and ask for it. Until then it's like being given a ticket for a train, but refusing to take it. You don't get on the train without it. I can forgive you, but you don't receive my forgiveness until you ask for it. That said, Language is imperfect, and I think most of us are really thinking the same way.

and if it's a statment of fact, it is not a sign of unforgivness.

Honestly to me whether or not they ask for fogiveness is a moot point. I can forgive if they do, or if they don't. If I use the Bible as standard, Jesus forgave those who crucified him and they obviously didn't ask for forgivness. Same with Stephen when he was stoned. But we must also not confuse forgivness with Justificaton. I could forgive someone for killing my wife, but if justice is served they will still do the time. And it doesn't mean that I not admit that the killing took place and that they did it. Just that I forgive them for it. Perhaps a better example, I can forgive you for wrecking my car if I loaned it to you. You will still have to deal with the following. You most likely will have to walk home, or wait for some one to get you after the wreck. You will most likely have to deal with all of the insurance issues. You may have to pay fines ect. And the odds are, I'm not going to let you borrow my car again. If you were a child molester and I were a former victim, I might forgive you, but that doesn't mean I will spend time with you, and I might have to inform others about you for your saftey. Unforgivness is really a form of bitterness and anger and it usally hurts you more than them, because they don't really care whether you forgive them or not.

:

Rene Descartes walks into a bar, the bartender asks if he'd like a beer. After a pause to concider he replies "I think not." and disappears. Sorry, it's my favorite joke.

It's been so long I don't remember any of the specific instances, besides the two I mentioned. Most of the time it was as a result of their research. I know they've gone back and forth a lot regarding whether the tithe should be off of your gross income or net income, or in other words, before or after taxes. Of course they were always willing to change if it was based on their "research". I do have memory where they changed something based that some plain PFAL grad had pointed out. but I don't remember what it was, and I've long ago "lost" the reel-to-reel tapes from that time period. But again, it was something minor, anything major always required that it be from their research team.

I know it was always mentioned that they would change if they were wrong when I first was involved in 1972 and 73. I did see times in the very early days that they did change, but not on anything major that wasn't their own work. Obviously they think they are right, so if they believe they are right they are not going to change. Your example of John 10:10 is a case in point in how they react to information that disagrees with what they teach. Honestly, I wouldn't change my thought about that either. (not to turn this into a docternal discussion) but when I read this passage I see it as a more abundant life both in the new heaven and earth and the now, both spiritual and physical. Life in every aspect. I read your thoughts on this in another thread and it didn't convence me. But I respect you and thank you for sharing it. They also have changed, from time to time their doctrine. The Athletes of the spirit is one they used to hold up as an example that will change their teaching based on "new knowledge." (don't get me going there though) One of the other areas they mentioned was "Are the Dead Alive Now." I have heard early teaching by VPW where he did not teach this, but based on new revelation he changed. Of course sometimes how we show people can make a difference. At our current church I would never teach something that I knew disagreed with their understanding without sharing it with the pastor first and having his permission. If he didn't give it, we would agree to disagree in that area and focus on what we do agree on. If I taught it first, I would expect him to be angry with and would not be surprized by it at all.

I'm going to admit that I still believe "The Gap Theory." It really does make sense to me, and I don't believe that we have the technology to see what we need to see in order to tell if it is true or not. So, how long has man been on the earth....no idea, depending on how you define man. I don't have a problem with evolution, nor do I have a problem with thinking that if God wanted to re-make many things from the "first heaven and earth." in the our current heaven and earth He could. If he made it out of the same stuff, how would we know the difference? DNA and all would look the same. There was obviously some kind of man, on the first earth and the first earth fragments were used to reform the second earth. How old is it? As old as it needs to be. I also don't where it says everything was destroyed. The water above was seperated from the water below. Lots of fish, reptiles etc. could have still be alive in those waters. I get the impression from the words used that there may have been big hunks of earth floating around in the water. There could have been life on those as well. We see God putting things back together, and creating new life, possibly remaking old life, but nothing that says life from one earth didn't carry on to the first earth. As far as Adamic man being only 6,000 years old, from what I've read, translating numbers is pain, those figures could easily be way off.

I doubt that Mueller would have made that claim. But I do believe that he always strived to the be the man he knew to be and was aware of his failings and worked to change them so that each day of his life he did better. The miracles that took place in Muellers life are well documented and often witnessed by others. He is a good man to emulate.

Here's a horrible thought. The next president could be hiding out, unseen and unheard from for a number of years. Working, as at UPS and then as a personal trainer and who knows what else. Waiting for the chance to return...and drive TWI even further into the ground.

I guess I must have been lucky somehow or I didn't stick around long enough either time to get my self in trouble. In the '70's I had a habit of asking questions and disagreeing with at least the local leadership. Sometimes I even saw things change. When I came back briefly in 1989 - 90, one of my first actions was to write a letter to LCM about his language and the lack of love I found at Headquarters and how people kept talking about it but it didn't look like anyone really did it. (I heard the Corp and staff got yelled at about this - Sorry) Then I heard about the Atheles of the spirit and wrote another letter to LCM telling him it made no sense and went against all the principles in PFAL. That was the only one that got a response. The Limb Leader called me and offered to explain it to me, he did and I told him, it still didn't make sense. I left shortly after, not because of trouble, I actually found the local group pretty good, just putting up with stuff they shouldn't have and following doctrines that were just wrong. For the record I met that Limb Leader again not to long after he left TWI a few years later and asked him if he remembered me. I found his response sad, but flattering. "Yeah, your the guy I should have listened to." But I have heard horror stories, and from what I gather it hasn't really changed, it's just more subtile.

Sorry for the double post, but I don't want people to think I was better that all of you. I left the first time, beause of issues that just sort of resulted in me being forgotten about around late 1976 early '77. I missed all of the uproard that everyone else saw. As much as I hate to admit it, I think it likely that had I not left earlier, that I might very well hve been one of A**H***s that remained in the ministry and condemned everyone else. I thank God almost every day that I was not lead down that route.

Since I left and came back it didn't take much of a wake-up call to get me to leave again. The first time I heard LCM cursing at a STS I started thinking about leaving again. When I first heard the teaching regarding Athletes of the Spirit in Ephesians that seem in total contrast to all of the principles I was taught in PFAL. But the straw that broke the camel's back was the first time I saw the WOW Auditorium. It looks so good, but it's rotting out on the inside. I could tell you more to that story, but those are the things that made me leave again....quickly.

I left in late '76, and I'm sure they knew the copyright laws. (at least the first time) They copyrighted all of there classes. Just not their STS. I was always told we were free to copy them if we wanted to and give to give to others.

Since it doesn't say much about them after the exodus...who knows. Of course I was thinking more along the lines that TWI said Jerusalem had become very law and works oriented, and that seems to be exactly what TWI became. Different laws and works, but laws and works just the same.

I think when I went the dechomi/lambano verses using both a program called "on-line bible" and "Bibleworks 5" only about half of the usages of the word lambano were really lambano and there were usages of both words that were totally left out that really helped with understanding what they meant. Both of these are very good programs by the way and I recommend them. Bibleworks is a little more through, but costs $500. On-Line Bible is free and sometimes more versital unless you are really into the nitty-gritty of the languages. Back to on-topic. I've often thought that TWI is almost exactly what they say Jame's ministry became.

I'm not sure debunked is the right word. I spent a lot of time going over those two words when I left TWI. I found the best definition for lambano was "to receive and make use of." I also found there were a lot of usages of the word lambano that where listed in the back of the RTHST book that were not the word lambano but had the word as a root. The prefex changes the whole meaing. There are also usages of the word decomai that implied the use of what was received and again prefexes change the meaning. In regards to the basic teaching that Paul was not supposed to go to Jerusalem. Yes I believe a lot of the Christians in Jerusalem were caught up in the law. But that dosen't mean they were evil. Of course if you want to talk about being caught up in law and works, it seems TWI became just that.

Personally, I might buy some of the Bullinger books. When I looked at the library I was very surprised to see book by Derek Prince, someone whose teachings I like a lot and find challenging. While there are some similar ideas, much of what he teaches would not be in alignment with TWI teachings. In regards to posting the old STS, a lot of the older teachings were deliberately not copyrighted, with the idea that you could copy them and give them away. In fact under copyright law they would be considered copyrighted, but just not having the copyright registered. It would not be a problem for TWI to register the copyright, or even sue without doing so if they wanted.

I ran what some might call a splinter group, (I didn't think of it that way) and had a large number of people stop coming when I said something along the following. "I don't want to here Dr. Weirwilles name mentioned in any teaching. I don't want to hear 'Dr. said....' anyone new won't know who he is and won't care. If you can show it from the word of God, I don't want to hear it."

Great Idea.