T-Bone

Hi Waxit, I am very puzzled by your follow-up posts after Rocky asked you to tell your story...If you remember, I asked you something similar - along the same lines as Rocky back on May 2nd: Rocky has shared some good things on the importance of sharing YOUR story…I share a brief story of myself in my profile – in the "about me" tab – it’s just two simple paragraphs – but I’ve also supplemented and expanded on that over the years in various posts about many of those aha moments… The reason I asked you why the Sabbath was so important and how did it change your life was over something you said on April 13th: I’m just trying to be helpful here – you might want to ask yourself why people misunderstand you and if there’s something you can do to remedy that. I do that quite a bit on myself . One of the biggest things I’ve learned at Grease Spot (and more so here than anywhere else) is that we all have “filters” (like our set of beliefs, experiences, worldview, etc.). These “filters” have to do with processing communication – both in the sending and receiving of information: Sending information: when we say someone has no filter it really means the person just says what they think without considering the audience or situation. Receiving information: on the flip side – when it comes to listening “filters” may be in place to remove, block, alter or in some way restrict unwanted material – like things that don’t jibe with our worldview. I don’t think it’s possible to remove all “filters” in communication. But I do think it’s possible to adjust some filters. On a personal note, I’ve always been a very inquisitive person. I am aware of the many times in my life where I’ve opened up more on some narrow outlook I had on something. For example, over the years of dialoging with a variety of folks on Grease Spot (some Christian, agnostic, atheist, Jewish, and New Age - there's more viewpoints too - that's all I can think of right now) I’ve reevaluated what I think of the Bible – and oddly enough it has also heightened my interest in Jesus Christ. So when it comes to doctrine and practice, what someone is preaching or teaching…whatever – it all goes through these “filters” – what I know of the Bible, what makes sense to me and seems to resonate with the spirit of God within me. Granted sometimes people may have misunderstood you. But sometimes you may have misunderstood others. I am curious about something... Is Grease Spot the only place where you try to get your message out? Do you share your message on other online forums as well as talking to people in person? If Grease Spot has been such a waste of time then why have you persisted this long - from March 31st and some 17 pages until now? I mentioned above about someone having no filter and just says what they think without considering the audience or situation. Have you really thought about your audience at Grease Spot? Are you aware that Grease Spot is made up of a lot of folks who felt that wierwille and/or other TWI-leadership demanded blind and unquestioned obedience? Are you aware that Grease Spot is made up of a lot of folks who felt that wierwille and/or other TWI-leadership acted arrogantly superior and disdainful toward others? Are you aware that Grease Spot is made up of a lot of folks who felt that wierwille and/or other TWI-leadership devalued others as being inferior, incapable or unworthy? Are you aware that Grease Spot is made up of a lot of folks who felt that wierwille and/or other TWI-leadership did not seem to listen well to what others said and that communication was really a one-way street in the form of their dictates and "spiritual" pronouncements? Are you aware that Grease Spot is made up of a lot of folks who felt that wierwille and/or other TWI-leadership acted as if they had the answer to man’s spiritual problem? Am I saying you are like a dangerous cult leader? No – of course not ! So what am I saying? I’m saying you might consider adjusting your output filter – taking into account your audience at Grease Spot – since the way you often come across seems to be reminiscent of wierwille and/or other TWI-leadership - a prime example is the part of your post I quoted above – it’s actually counterproductive to your “mission” (whatever that is) because you’re turning people off. I’ve said it before – and I’ll say it again – I believe you do have a lot to offer Grease Spot. That’s not to dismiss what you think your mission is here – just saying there’s more to you than just that. That's the point of telling your story. We are certainly complex creatures – and I guess we all like to take shortcuts with early impressions of others – maybe make a few mistakes in assumptions or judgements. In that regard we are cognitive misers - “the human mind is considered to be a cognitive miser due to the tendency of people to think and solve problems in simpler and less effortful ways rather than in more sophisticated and more effortful ways, regardless of intelligence.” I try to accept people as they are - warts and all – and I hope they accept me the same way. Sometimes it takes a lot of work – maybe make some adjustments to the input and output filters. Of late, I’ve tried to streamline my comments to probe and criticize your method of interpreting a verse - but I was not criticizing you! You should not take that as a personal attack or that you are in any way inferior - or superior to me. If it gives you any satisfaction I want you to know because of your passion on this thread you’ve got me reading up on the Sabbath in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - - it’s only a six page article but it takes me a longer than normal time because ( besides other responsibilities I have to family and neighbors during this pandemic ) I like to look up every chapter and verse reference – so it takes a while of checking out various translations, Hebrew & Greek words, and prayerfully contemplating the passage. When I’m done with that article I’m going to read the eight page article in - Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible Now don’t get your hopes up on making another convert - I just want to let you know I don’t like to be force-fed. And I can assure you my filters mentioned above pretty much guarantees I’m not going to be gung ho on Sabbath keeping anytime in the foreseeable future. However, you’ve inspired me to expand my awareness and respect for the spiritual significance the Sabbath has with some people... And before you go patting yourself on the back – I was serious when I said you’re turning off folks – so the reason I got into reading up on the Sabbath isn’t because of anything in particular you’ve said. As I said earlier, I am very inquisitive by nature - and it was for the strong feelings you expressed over the Sabbath that got my curiosity up…And btw I have intentionally tried to maintain either a neutral tone or a slightly abrasive tone so that you would keep me at arm’s length – that way I had hopes you might feel I wasn’t threatening your independence or interests through some guise of friendliness. I believe in the transformative process of open and honest discussions…hope you stick around.

Why do you feel it’s necessary to insert “(includes 7th day sabbayh)” in certain verses? How would you feel if someone inserted “(includes 7th day sabbayh)” in other verses like: “because by the works of the Law ( includes 7th day sabbayh) no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law (includes 7th day sabbayh) comes the knowledge of sin.” Romans 3:20 “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law ( includes 7th day sabbayh ) but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law (includes 7th day sabbayh) ; since by the works of the Law (includes 7th day sabbayh) no flesh will be justified.” Galatians 2:16 == == == Ok – I now understand that’s what you meant – but you’re still wrong. First off, it is obvious from the context (and I’ve re-posted Rom. 14:1-6 further below) Paul is addressing two categories of Christians – ones who are weak in the faith and ones who are more confident in their convictions of the faith. And second, Paul is NOT just talking about food – since he also mentions the word “day”. Furthermore, why would Paul be talking about pagan religious activity and then actually condone the activity? That makes no sense! What if I insert “(includes pagan religious activity)” in Romans 14 to read something like this – “One person regards one day (includes pagan religious activity) above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day (includes pagan religious activity) , observes it for the Lord”… == == == == == == == == == == 14 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God....Romans 14: 1-6 NASB

I agree…I didn’t mean to harshly condemn fundamentalism or dispensationalism…every viewpoint worth its salt has some merit – but for me, It’s like you said – anything can be taken to extremes. To be honest, I still find myself almost unconsciously using dispensationalist labels as sort of a kiosk-directory-you-are-here kind of thing when I’m reading some parts of the Old Testament (such as Innocence, Conscience, Human Government, Promise and Law) – but my use of them is more like a developmental historical marker rather than a change up in the rules. So I don’t see it as progressive revelation - but rather as I said before - a development or evolution in Judeo-Christian thought – there is a difference – the latter puts the focus on the human factor of faith. Also for me, the jury is still out on definite distinctions between Israel and the Church and pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib. I look forward to your input – and after thinking about your comment on Galatians, I’ll leave you with this from Paul the Apostle and Jewish Christianity “A central concern for Paul was the inclusion of Gentiles into God's New Covenant, and the role of faith and commandments in the inclusion of Gentile converts. Paul did not deem circumcision necessary, as witnessed throughout his writings, but thought that God included Gentiles into his New Covenant through faith in Christ. This brought him into conflict with some Jewish Christians, who requested strict observances of the Jewish law by Gentile Christians. Eventually the less strict view prevailed, and led to the separation of Gentile Christianity from Judaism.”

Hi, JerryBX, You have some interesting thoughts – and here’s my two cents on what you said... The message - not the official translation by Eugene Peterson but the sense of the New Testament With any book, culture, religion, system of thought, etc. that present a set of beliefs there is going to be a learning curve - which simply means that acquiring a new or better or deeper understanding comes from experiencing or practicing those set of beliefs…So, I think the nuts and bolts of the Christian faith are the same in the Gospels as well as in the epistles – but more than likely there will be some variations how folks understood those “nuts and bolts” simply due to the individuality of people and where they are on the learning curve. So one answer to your questions – it’s the same message but there’s a broad spectrum in the make-up of the audience. I will address something about the authors of that message further down below. It would be interesting if we could make a quantum leap back to the days when Jesus and the apostles walked the earth – and provided we also packed a universal translator. I wonder how many stark differences of practice would hit us in the face; or if we got involved in a topical discussion - would there be big differences in our concept of key elements of the faith? I guess that’s what we try to accomplish in studying the Bible…trying to bridge the gap in our understanding of a book that was compiled over a wide stretch of time long ago from different languages, cultures and worldviews. Today I re-read this entire thread and I was amused by my very first post: I still feel the same way now – but I actually mulled this over last night and may have managed to figure out why this doubt about my salvation doesn’t seem to bother me – I think I’ve been in the process of deconstructing my belief system ever since I left TWI. I am a study-bug but when I boil it down to what is essential to me I keep coming back to something Jesus said: 18 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 “Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes! 8 “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. 9 If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell. 10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven…Matthew 18:1-10 NASB == == == Even though I am getting older – in the last five or so years, I feel like I’m circling back to some of the bare-bones faith I had as a kid growing up in a decent and kind Roman Catholic family. With Jesus talking about becoming like children – to me he’s characterizing the simplicity of salvation and the complete dependence I should have on him since - like a young child -I have no resources of my own to pull off this salvation. Back when I was a kid, there wasn’t much focus on the Bible and I never felt encouraged toward any intellectual pursuits like systematic theology. From family life and my trusty catechism I also remember the seriousness of sin and its consequences – how it impacts me and others - and to nip it in the bud before it grows into a cancer of the soul. Well…that’s my little re-interpretation of Matthew 18 anyway …my takeaway: don’t sweat about some future salvation – see what good you can accomplish in the here and now. Let the Golden Rule rule. == == == == == == The authors of the message Since dispensationalism has been brought up a few times on this thread – I would like to address that in light of what I said above about the learning curve – since that process of growth would apply to the apostles too…In my opinion dispensationalist-thinking obscures the actual process of how the New Testament documents came into existence. ***spoiler alert for those who hold to the mathematical-exactness-and-scientific-precision-Word-of-God-idea- as-taught-in-PFAL – it’s a contradiction, based on the inconsistent elements that were presented in the class. I do believe that God inspired people to write the Bible and that the authors used their own vocabulary, style and such – yes I agree with that. But one thing wierwille did not really address – and herein lies the flaw of the mathematical-exactness-and-scientific-precision-Word-of-God-idea- as-taught-in-PFAL - - - - - - the authors wrote from their worldview. A worldview is “the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge and point of view.” (from Wikipedia worldview ) ...and guess what? no one has a perfect and comprehensive worldview...we are human beings with flaws and limitations. Furthermore, one’s worldview is not necessarily set in stone – since it’s possible that one’s knowledge, understanding, attitudes, opinions, etc. can change from additional input of information, experiences, etc. – all of which basically describes growth. I think one of the most remarkable Bible stories of change and growth is of the apostle Paul as revealed in some references to his former worldview ( Acts 22: 1-21; Gal. 1:11 – 2:21; Phil. 3: 1- 16) …Folks might enjoy reading Changing Minds by Howard Gardner - Harvard psychologist Gardner explains the process of changing one’s mind – and even gets into the conversion of the apostle Paul. Another thing about dispensationalist-thinking is that it is artificial - for I believe it is something produced by human beings rather than occurring “naturally” in the scriptures…it is more or less a theologian’s “template” – pattern to serve as a guide – an overlay if you will – a mental construct to be superimposed on the Bible as one attempts to understand its content. It seems to me that dispensationalism and fundamentalism for that matter, are cut from the same cloth – in that they hold to a very literal interpretation of the Bible and they both have the assumption of its inerrancy – in other words it does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact ( see biblical inerrancy ). I no longer follow a dispensationalism or fundamentalism viewpoint – but rather I think of the Bible as a magnificent record of development or evolution in Judeo-Christian thought. In my humble opinion, that is an honest way to explain the obvious errors and inconsistencies. I don’t mean to rain on anyone’s parade over this – just wanted to let you all know where I’m coming from. Another interesting thing about the development of the Christian faith is to consider when the Gospels were written. The range of dates most widely accepted by scholars is 65 to 110 AD ( see dating the Bible ). Jesus’ resurrection and ascension happened about 30 AD ( see Bible Hub timeline of events ). That’s at least - on the earlier side if you want to go with 65 AD - some 35 years difference historical-proximity-wise from when actual events took place to when they were “officially” documented. I’m sure the apostles didn’t just sit back on their sandals for 35 years and then suddenly in a flash of revelatory lightning pen a Gospel or two. I assume they were applying what they knew and continued growing in knowledge and experience - and probably wrote some things down - like journaling . What I think one could infer from all this is that you have the same message in the Gospels and the epistles written by seasoned believers of that message. Folks might enjoy reading Making Sense of the Bible by Adam Hamilton . I think it’s a good book to help one get a handle on the nature of scripture and how we should interpret it. Also I think the book gives you a clearer idea of the writing style (which I mentioned above) in the Gospels – which is an historical narrative and nothing like what you would expect to see in a modern textbook on history or even in a lot of modern journalism. It also gives some details on how the Gospels were compiled – which means assembled from various sources - which may account for the discrepancies in the Gospels - having different versions and details of the same account; perhaps similar to the minor discrepancies and erroneous facts in the narratives of ten people who witnessed the same really bad traffic accident - six witnesses describe the vehicle that caused the accident and then sped off as a white Dodge SUV, two others said it was either a tan Toyota or Lexus SUV, and two said it was a Ford SUV either silver or gold but it was hard to tell the color because it was 11:30 at night. Fortunately one person caught the license plate number and when the police ran the tag they were able to identify the suspect’s vehicle as a light grey 2016 Dodge Durango; ...anyway, this compiling process was even mentioned in the beginning of Luke: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught…Luke 1: 1-4 NASB

Hey cool song, Waysider…my wife turned me on to John Prine years ago.

Hi St. Christopher, and welcome to Grease Spot! I think you have a good attitude about things – I can relate to that – I am thankful for all the good people I met and the good stuff I learned while in TWI. I can’t speak to the topic of splinter groups since I’ve never gotten involved with one after I left TWI. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of TWI and what went wrong – so here’s my two cents. I tend to think that wierwille was probably a poser from the get-go. I am not one to portray him as the devil incarnate. Nor do I get into judging whether or not he was a born again Christian – I’ll leave that up to the Lord Jesus Christ. However, actions do speak louder than words – and Jesus Christ did warn us of false prophets as ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing, saying you will recognize them by their fruits ( Matthew 7: 15 -20 ) – so obviously he expects us to be discerning to some degree (and I use the word “discerning” in the normal dictionary definition which means simply having good judgment )…What does a poser do? The person pretends they are something they are not in order to gain something from others. There is a vast body of evidence - facts, information and witnesses available to indicate that wierwille was a liar, a thief and a cheat as far back as the beginning of his ministry. Why I think it’s difficult for some TWI-believers to see its cultic attributes is because they don't really look past the Christian veneer on the surface. After all, the supposed centerpiece of TWI is something familiar to a lot of folks – the Bible. Folks might be interested in the book Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible by James Sire - which covers many of the logical fallacies and manipulative techniques used by cults. Another thing which makes this Christian veneer almost impenetrable to TWI-believers is the subliminal way in which “God’s ministry” had become almost synonymous with “God’s Word” – with such an air of arrogant superiority and disdain for those outside the fold, TWI leaders often proclaimed “we have more of the rightly-divided Word of God than any other group”. Instilling meekness (which is a nice way of saying submissiveness) is best done on a slow-boil. It starts out first as a fundamentalist viewpoint of the Bible – which is a strict literal interpretation of the Bible such as in the PFAL class. (By the way, Fundamentalism is not limited to a belief in God – it can also refer to any creed that mandates a strict obedience to a particular set of beliefs such as Fascism, Nazism, Communism, etc.) I tend to think that over time, the authoritative nature of Fundamentalism becomes suffused with how folks perceive and interact with the ministry. To question the ministry is akin to questioning the Word. A true believer just doesn’t do that. Once you become a follower of TWI you are expected to go and tell others just like they did in the book of Acts – hey, no pressure, the “sales” strategy is simple - tap into the warm market of friends, family, co-workers, neighbors, etc. the same strategy as oddly enough, multi-level marketing schemes…Folks might be interested in the Huff Post article on the similarities of MLM and Cults - briefly mentions such cult tactics as love-bombing, deception, financial exploitation, guilt, shame and fear. In the big picture - there's some kind of creepy dynamics in how TWI works - a weird type of symbiotic relationship - which science says “…is a close relationship between two species in which at least one species benefits. For the other species, the relationship may be positive, negative, or neutral” –but if I may borrow the idea – TWI may be like a strange symbiotic relationship between two kinds of people – those who are truly kind & helpful and those who are Pharisee-grade cruel, harmful and exploitative. . Just to be clear, TWI as the whole enchilada is based on the lies, deceit and delusions of a con artist, wierwille and still continues to this day grooming leadership to exploit followers. II Peter 2 is similar to Jesus’ warning in Matthew 7 – it speaks of false prophets and false teachers and says “In their greed these teachers will exploit you…”Overall, the dominant characteristic of TWI has always been parasitic – habitually…selfishly using people. ...as a side note - maybe there's another perhaps spiritual dimension - or just from my perspective anyway – I think there were times when it was God working behind the scenes along with some good and kind TWI-believer helping me get through some tough times...And there were also times when it must have been God alone who helped me hang in there despite how much some TWI-a$$hole tried to crush my soul. Having been through the WOW program and especially the Way Corps training program I really got a bead on TWI’s cult tactics after I left and began to deeply reflect on my experience. I don’t think your average TWI-believer (who is NOT way corps) has a clue of the actual nuts and bolts of an abusive organization like TWI. At the local level – twig or branch – you might have a good person running things – even a way corps person - maybe even clergy (good people come in all shapes and sizes) and everything is just peachy keen. Another thing I might add - a lot of good and kind way corps leadership were almost like a buffer to cushion the impact of the harmful $hit that came out of headquarters. God forbid you should have some TWI-a$$hole (TWI-a$$holes come in all shapes and sizes too – and tend to get bent all out of shape and want to cut you down below their exaggerated size if you don’t toe the corporate line). So maybe “can’t see the forest for the trees” might explain why some folks at the local level – for whatever reason - scratch their heads and ask “what went wrong?” – and then leave and join a splinter group. They were only involved at the local level and did not see the big picture. Like I said, I can’t speak from experience about splinter groups. I just think if it involves regurgitating wierwille-dogma, whitewashing wierwille and preserving his fan base I’m not interested.

I disagree with you - it appears to me that Paul is using a rather broad general term in the context referring to days appointed to be observed by the Jewish law – Paul does NOT exclude the Sabbath. Rather in a brief but comprehensive manner Paul is talking about regarding a certain day above another – it could be a feast day – days of unleavened bread, the Passover, feast of tabernacles, etc., or even the Sabbath…You are contradicting yourself saying Paul was not talking about the sabbath when in fact you said he did - you said: “In those days they had religious activities on certain days of the week and that's what Paul is addressing” – yes, you’re absolutely right - they did have religious activities on certain days - such as the Sabbath set aside as a day of worship – a religious activity. In Romans 3 Paul is starting to develop the theme of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Does that mean everything Judaism stood for is wiped out? Not at all – Paul says in Rom. 3:31 that faith actually confirms the purpose of the law. As I stated in a previous post – the law was a means to provide payment for when people sinned, to show mankind’s inability to obey God’s righteous demands and to point to Christ as the Savior...Romans 4 talks about Abraham being justified by faith - not by works. I don’t see a contradiction with what Paul said in Romans 3 with what he said in Romans 14. Because in Rom.14 Paul addresses the latitude we have regarding the observance or non-observance of certain days. Perhaps if you ease up on the Sabbath bias (inserting Sabbath-keeping parenthetically in your mind - and in your post ) you might see that Romans 3 and Romans 14 do not oppose each other. Paul introduces saving faith in Romans 3. By the time he gets to Romans 14 Paul is detailing some practical aspects of faith. (Selections from Romans 3, 4 & 14 are given below). As to dogma-scare-tactics like “if there’s contradictions the Bible will fall apart” – that is really just a false dilemma - As Wikipedia says “The false dilemma fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception.” - ...Sometimes we may think we're stuck in an either/or situation when in fact there may be several more options available. When it comes right down to it – the Bible is what it is. Ever hear that expression before? What does it mean? It indicates the immutable nature of the Bible - meaning whatever was written down in those ancient texts is not going to change - what's done is done.... Yes, there are a lot of translations and versions out there which reflect various translation philosophies (form-driven, meaning-driven, etc.) – but if translators are worth their salt their rendering of the ancient texts usually convey the same basic ideas of God, Jesus Christ, sin, redemption, prayer, brotherly love and so forth. An interesting book about the trustworthiness of these ancient texts is The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable by FF Bruce ...I think a more apt phrase might be “if there’s contradictions in a theology – one's religion might fall apart.” For the aim of systematic theology is to arrange religious truths in a self-consistent whole. ( see systematic theology for more info) == == == 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those ]who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. 31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law…Rom. 3:21-31 NASB == == == == 4 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, And whose sins have been covered. 8 “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.” 9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.” 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. 13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not [m]through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; 15 for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. 16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,...Romans 4: 1-16 NASB == == == 14 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God....Romans 14: 1-6 NASB

Skyrider, thanks so much for quoting Catcup’s post from 2005 – that was before I joined Grease Spot – so I never saw it. That’s why it’s always good to bring up those oldies but goodies every so often…For the past few years I have been copying / pasting into Word docs so many of the great threads on Grease Spot along with the links to them just so I can easily ruminate over the wisdom and truth contained in them at my convenience. Catcup’s thread is now one of those docs on my laptop. Stuff like this always fascinates me - I am irresistibly drawn to anything that helps me understand the manipulative techniques & impact of con artists, predators, cult leaders, mental & emotional bullies, sleazebags, tyrants – and “lying thieving weasels” (that triad of doom was Don’tWorryBeHappy’s moniker for those TWI a$$holes past & present – you know who you are! ). (Hi Don'tWorryBeHappy, Tonto and I sure miss you man! hope you're doing well !!! ) Around the time I left TWI I happened to read a book The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom     (Bloom was an American philosopher, classicist, and academician – and his book is a critique of the contemporary university and how Bloom saw it as failing its students – which resonates with me seeing the catastrophic failure of the way corps program)…over the years since I’ve read that book – there is this one quote from it that has become almost like a refrain to my once cult-entangled life – and it’s as follows: Freedom of the mind requires not only, or not even specially, the absence of legal constraints but the presence of alternative thoughts. The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

I beg to differ – “includes 7th day Sabbath” (which I put in bold red of your quote) - or even just the word "Sabbath" is NOT mentioned or even alluded to in I John 2: 3 & 4 - it seems to me you are trying to force your assumption into this discussion...So I refuse to dignify your loaded question with a response - instead I will re-frame the question in a straight forward manner - what are his "commandments" mentioned in I John? The word “commandments” is indeed intriguing – and should warrant the attention of Bible students. Let’s use Scripture to interpret Scripture – I believe clarification as to what “commandments” refers to may be gathered from the immediate context as well as the greater context…please allow me to quote more of this chapter, and of II John after which I will humbly offer an explanation. 3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: 6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. 7 Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard. 8 On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true Light is already shining. 9 The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. 10 The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. 11 But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes…I John 2: 3- 11 NASB 4 I was very glad to find some of your children walking in truth, just as we have received commandment to do from the Father. 5 Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. 6 And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it…II John 4 – 6 NASB == == == == == == In I John 2:7, when John says “I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard” he is probably using word play to reinforce the meaning of “commandment”. Though John does not say what the commandment is in I John, he does clearly state what it is in II John 5 & 6 (see above text quote) – it is the commandment to love…John saying the commandment was “old” may refer to the Old Testament commands to love in Leviticus 19:18 “…you shall love your neighbor as yourself…” and in Deuteronomy 6:5 “…You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…”. The command that we love one another seems to be consistent with directives given elsewhere in the New Testament (see Matt. 22: 39; John 13: 35; 15:12; Rom. 13:10; Gal. 5:13; Eph. 4: 2; I Thess. 4:9; Heb. 13:1; James 2:8; I Peter 1:22; 2:17; 4: 8; I John 3:16, 17, 23; 4: 11, 21). Though I don’t see any directives or mandatory obligation to keep the Sabbath in the epistles of I John or II John – you are certainly free to think that there are.

I don’t mean to burst your bubble, but so far you have NOT exhausted (drain someone of their physical or mental resources; tire out) me and a few other posters who have stuck with this thread – nor does it seem to me that your participation has been exhaustive ( considering all elements or aspects; fully comprehensive) of this topic. If you are referring to the question at the end of your previous post – quoted here I am pleased to inform you that I did respond to your question – quoting myself here

probably Bondo

nice! In situations like that, one’s choice of transportation is critical. My Punster Underwriter’s Nomenclature states that a Dodge Charger can access cash for repairs at the ATM. A Plymouth Voyager sounds like it’s seaworthy – so it would depend on what propulsion system had broken down – the drivetrain for land or sea. Bonus feature: James Bond’s underwater car

I don’t recall saying that…you might be conflating something you asked with a response I gave. You used the word “insignificant” in your request To which I responded by quoting Romans 14:5 I don't recall any exchange of gunfire with you over this verse - matter of fact I don't recall you ever responding at all to my post of this verse.

When is it time to go to the dentist? Tooth hurty.

I’m sorry but since we are both aware that you and I have opposing views on what the Word of God says about keeping the Sabbath – you’ll have to be much more specific in your question. Can you re-frame the question around a specific chapter or verse in the Bible?

Hi Waxit, I’m doing okay – thanks for asking – and I hope you’re doing well…btw, there’s no need to explain your reaction to my posts – I know I come across as a jerk sometimes – especially when I get wound up/abrasive /aggressive – I guess I see red too when I open up my old TWI-mental-baggage and let it overshadow my clear thinking…so once again I apologize…and going forward I will try to be brief and to the point… == == == And now to answer your question…I’ve never said that the “7th day sabbath keeping commandment” is unimportant or unnecessary per se. For something to be necessary means it’s a required or mandatory component of something bigger. The context determines what components are necessary. For example, what is necessary or required for our bodies to survive? Our bodies have just five basic needs: air, water, food, shelter and sleep. I’m pretty sure I’ve never belittled any of the commandments within the context of the Jewish religion, nor am I belittling them now as a Christian. What I have tried to explain was that within the context of Christianity ( as I understand it, anyway ) the most important or necessary components are what Christ deemed so – and he kept it simple – he simplified the law and the prophets down to just two commands - love God and neighbor…Logically, if one loves God and neighbor they would also believe it is wrong to commit adultery, murder, lie, steal, etc. – however, it seems apparent from many New Testament passages that there is much more latitude given to “keep the Sabbath holy”. For instance, Romans 14:5 ,6 says “One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.” From that I take it if one Christian wants to regard every day as holy and live it for the Lord that’s just as cool as another Christian who wants to regard one day above another – such as the Sabbath – and live it for the Lord. Verses like this make me think that perhaps God has given us a greater capacity to understand the scope of freedom in action or thought we now have. Maybe it’s not so much a matter of what was written on tables of stone by the finger of God (Exodus 24:12) – but rather now the priority is to the law that the Spirit of the living God has written in our minds and hearts (II Cor. 3: 2, 3; Heb. 8:10). I am sorry if my answer is not brief enough for you – but there were a few points that were necessary to unfold from your question.

Thanks for the info, Mark…I looked into each series from the link you had provided – interesting stuff – lots of resources in each one…I may try something like that down the road…For now, I’ve got plenty of Bible translations and resources on my bookshelves to keep me busy – and I do have the Logos Bible app on my iPhone, as well as a few study Bibles in different translations, a couple of Bible Handbooks and commentaries in Kindle app on my iPhone. Also I’ve been using the Bible Gateway site and the Bible Hub site more frequently this year.

No - that is the Holman Christian Standard Bible - The Passion Bible...I have the HCSB study Bible already ( HCSB Study Bible on Amazon ) The Passion Translation is another translation - The Passion Translation on Amazon - all I've found is the New Testament and some will have Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs

Thanks for those links, Mark...which series do you have? Professional, Discipleship, or Discovery?

By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked…I John 2:3-6 NASB I am curious – why would someone assume “His commandments” includes “7th day Sabbath keeping” ? In a similar vein – if keeping the Sabbath was absolutely necessary to be in full compliance with “His commandments”, then where in the church epistles is that clearly specified? From history and the scriptures we know there were Gentile (or non-Jewish) converts to Christianity - some of whom we may safely assume had no knowledge of the Jewish religion (laws, commandments, lifestyle, etc.)…and so… Where in the church epistles does it stipulate a Gentile converting to Christianity must first be schooled in the Jewish religion as part of the process in changing whatever beliefs they may hold at the time? Bonus feature – check out Paul the Apostle and Jewish Christianity

Hi Mark, for study purposes I often use the NASB…as A User’s Guide to Bible Translations by David Dewey states on page 156, “The NASB is a literal translation, far more than the AV/KJV to the point of being wooden. It is considerably more form-driven than even the RSV, and in the Old Testament far more firmly rejects any conjectural readings or deviations from the traditionally accepted Hebrew text.” …and on page 34 & 36, “A form-driven translation is molded by the structure and style of the original language. Its aim is to come as close to the original as can be achieved in an English rendering. Where possible (depending on just how rigidly this translation philosophy is applied) a form-driven version will keep to the simple dictionary definitions of the Hebrew and Greek words being translated as well as the word order and grammatical structures of the original…Often a form-driven rendering is all that is needed to produce a perfectly sensible and natural translation.” Dewey talks about the Bible coming from a distant past and remote culture – and unless you are prepared to learn these ancient languages and culture, you must use a translation to access the Word of God. I am a bit of a study-bug though not as much as I was a few years ago. I have something like 27 translations, a couple of interlinears and a Greek New Testament on my bookshelf. For just plain reading enjoyment I use the NIV (which strives for a balance between form-driven and meaning-driven). I do like some of the newer translations and I’m waiting for The Passion to come out with a complete Old and New Testament version. Whenever I get down to the nitty gritty in a doctrinal study – my go-to translation is often the NASB just because of the good cross-reference system featured in some editions - like the NASB reference edition .

Taking another look at the verses that Waxit mentioned – I have a different take – our faith in Christ enables us to go far and above what any feeble attempts at just abiding by the law will hope to accomplish. 10 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. 5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”…Romans 10: 1-13 NASB It seems rather obvious to me that Paul is saying the aim of what Christ did was to put an end to a person’s futile attempts at righteousness by vain efforts to obey the law – instead a much easier solution is presented – simply a belief in Christ as Lord and Savior (verses 8-13). == == == == 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. 31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law……Romans 3: 21-31 NASB Paul is not disparaging or belittling the law here – but rather underscores the purpose of the law and how faith fulfills that purpose. Paul develops this further in chapters 6 & 7. If one thinks about the impetus of the law – to provide a means to pay for the penalty of infractions and to show our inability to obey God’s righteous demands - and ultimately to drive us to Christ - ( see But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. Gal. 3: 23-25 NASB). By our faith in Christ (accepting him who paid the price for our sins and consequently we've been given the capacity to obey God from the heart – see Romans 8:3, 4) we “establish” - histémi in the Greek – establish, uphold, set in balance, initiate, institute – the law. When I think of “set in balance” I picture the different elements of the law are in correct proportions – think of Jesus' words in Matthew 23: 23, 24 NASB: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. ..And if you remember back in Matthew 22: 34-40 Jesus revealed the fulcrum – the pivot point – that upon which the whole law rests – it’s love for God and neighbor. Our faith in Christ enables us to act with genuine love – which I think is the guiding principle in Romans 14, showing Christ’s power to bring together dissimilar people ( some with concern for certain details of the law and others who have no such concern for the details or the ceremony of the law, or may not even have any knowledge of the law) into genuine unity. == == == == 8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment…James 2:8- 13 NASB It doesn’t seem to me James is saying if you violate one commandment, you violate them all. James refers to the “royal law” in v.8. Perhaps a better translation might be the supreme law – i.e. the law above all other laws – which James clarifies in the same verse – when he is says “the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,”. That command along with the first command to love God summarizes all the law and the prophets (Matt. 22:36-40; Rom. 13:8-10). It seems to me what James means by saying you violate one command then you violate them all – is that you are in effect actually breaking the linchpin that holds the whole law together – love for God and neighbor. Or perhaps James is suggesting a domino effect - a cumulative effect produced when one event initiates a succession of similar events. Imagine if the law was a beautiful stained glass window, breaking even one piece of the window compromises the structure and can cause additional issues. Or if the lead that holds the pieces together begins to fatigue more pressure is placed on the glass and could cause breaks in the glass. I don’t think the law of God is a bunch of disjointed directives but a unified code of conduct that requires love for God and neighbor in order to be in full compliance . James is saying you fulfill the supreme law by loving your neighbor as yourself - as he says in verse 8 "you are doing well". Note verse 12 "the law of liberty"... James 1:25 also mentions the law of liberty and equates it with the perfect law. Maybe I’m a little off base here – but I tend to look at the entire Bible as God’s law – rules for living – - and for convenience sake they've been condensed it's just two big ones now, love God and neighbor - and with faith in Christ, abiding by those rules is liberating – as in freedom from the bondage of sin (see Rom. 7 & 8). == == = == To round off my post – I'm switching gears from what Paul said about fulfilling the law of love by faith and now taking a look at I Timothy where Paul gets into dealing with those who want to be teachers of the law and eclipse the Christian life based on faith in what Christ has accomplished for us. 1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope, 2 To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. 3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. 5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions…I Timothy 1: 3- 7 NASB Verse 5 says “the goal of our instruction” – the word “our” is absent from the interlinear text – but I believe it is well supplied – for it seems tied to verse 3 where Paul said to Timothy to remain at Ephesus and instruct certain men. “Instruct” and “instruction” in both verses is from a form of the same Greek word – paraggello – and basically means to give an authorized command. Paul says that the goal of his instruction (his directives as authorized by God warning of erroneous doctrines, myths, speculation, fruitless discussions and to keep preaching of Christ the Savior, holding onto faith and a good conscience - see verses 8 - 20) is to engender love, help one keep a clear conscience, and develop genuine faith.

But maybe it was a way to train his successor: Step 1. Find someone who is self-centered and has the potential to believe that way-world revolves around him Step 2. Determine if the person shows signs of hero syndrome Step 3. Train up the impressionable youth in the way he should subjugate others and when he takes over the cult he will not depart from it (unless of course there’s some scandalous lawsuit and he gets ousted).

The reason I want to engage in a conversation with you is because – believe it or not – I believe you have a lot to offer in this discussion – as I believe we all do. I apologize if I gave you the idea that I have such a bad impression of you. I can be rather blunt and aggressive at times – but I don’t mean to personally attack you – rather, I like to vigorously scrutinize an idea. I guess I was not clear enough when I was explaining one of wierwille’s faults in logic – which is - errors and contradictions in the actual text will result in errors and contradictions in doctrine…what I tried to show in my previous post was that any actual errors or contradictions in the Bible do not automatically “translate” to erroneous doctrine – nor do errors and contradictions in the text negate the basic tenets of Christianity (such as in the belief of the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ and all that was accomplished through that)…However, when people try to formulate Christian doctrine from what the scriptures state – and since the Bible is NOT a textbook with topics neatly organized together, with an index and a comprehensive cross-reference system – there is always the possibility of errors and contradictions in a particular doctrine or systematic theology because of some faulty logic, bias or whatever on the part of the person. There’s nothing wrong with studying the scriptures to develop a doctrine, a systematic theology, whatever - matter of fact it’s necessary as we explore our faith. I know you have often stressed the importance of examining the scriptures for oneself – and that’s a good thing. It’s my belief as a Christian that we should thoughtfully examine and re-examine the scriptures and prove all things – and hold on to what is good (I Thess. 5:21). That should be a continuous process – as we refine our beliefs and even our thinking process. Per a couple of posts ago I explained what is a Christian agnostic – I even gave a link to the term - here - from which I now quote the following: “Christian agnostics practice a distinct form of agnosticism that applies only to the properties of God. They hold that it is difficult or impossible to be sure of anything beyond the basic tenets of the Christian faith. They believe that God or a higher power exists, that Jesus may have a special relationship with God and is in some way divine, and that God should be worshipped. This belief system has deep roots in Judaism and the early days of the Church.” I also stated I am somewhat of a Christian agnostic – and added some qualifiers to indicate my beliefs cannot be confined or restricted by such a broad and general description. I am sorry if I made you feel that I am being deceptive about the way I represent myself. I have tried my best to be fair and honest in presenting my arguments. I have tried to use scripture and simple logic. I hope I can address any further concerns you may have - so it will be possible to have a sane conversation with me. I don’t even care if you think I’m not a Christian or I’m being duplicitous - honestly it does not bug me in the least …if it makes you feel more comfortable, why don’t you just think of me as a rank unbeliever who does know a few things about the Bible – and you are witnessing to me about the importance of keeping the Sabbath. So what will you say to convince me?

Hi Waxit, I am curious - it seems to me that it’s worth your time to keep returning to the same topical discussion (whether here or on the other thread you started) – so there must be something “productive” going on…I mean, you must be getting something out of it…why else would you continue to post even though others have expressed different attitudes than yours and don’t agree with your idea of the importance of keeping the Sabbath. Personally, I always enjoy discussions when there’s a wide variety of a viewpoints. Why are you ignoring certain posters who have asked you direct questions? Is your avoidance out of frustration or fear or something else? You talk about all of us being hoodwinked by wierwille/TWI in the past – but it appears that you still harbor one of wierwille’s most deceptive tricks - This idea of wierwille’s is a slippery slope that errors in the text will lead to errors in doctrine. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We’ve had another poster on Grease Spot who presented a false dilemma, claiming that the KJV and other translations lack validity or authority in matters of faith. My response to that poster is here and I referred him to The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable by FF Bruce - and I basically challenged the poster to cite specific errors in the KJV or other translations/versions that would make a big difference in matters of faith. That poster never responded to any of my questions…why? I’ll tell you why. Because there are no errors or contradictions in the text that relate to the basic tenets of Christianity. wierwille never did demonstrate how a specific error in a text would lead to a significant change in any doctrines – other than trying to prove the Bible is infallible – i.e. error free. I think this type of argument was used to scare PFAL students into trusting wierwille’s twisted and incompetent efforts toward a systematic theology …Depending on one’s level of critical thinking and logic skills errors and contradictions may come into play when one tries to formulate a rational and coherent narrative of Christian doctrines. The Bible is what it is – an ancient book – that lends itself very easily to many interpretations and theologies…I’ve already expressed my view of the Bible on this thread and elsewhere – and I must say, even I as a Christian agnostic have more respect for what the Bible says on matters of faith than wierwille ever did. Waxit, for someone who often complains about the deceitfulness of wierwille as you do – I find it puzzling that you still use some of his flawed arguments to make your point. That leads me to believe you are still somewhat entangled in his type of faulty reasoning. I am trying to express this in the most respectful manner – because Grease Spot is not about running off people that may have some mental baggage. We all have that to some degree. Grease Spot is about helping folks to unpack the mental baggage and deal with it appropriately – and in my humble opinion, makes for a truly productive discussion So anyway, to circle back to the topic – what are the actual errors or contradictions in the Bible - in any translation, version or text - that you think keep people from understanding the importance of keeping the Sabbath?