spectrum49

Nothing to say here, except: Such a shameful act to steal one's work and put your own name on it! Actually, I wanted you all to ENJOY something appropriate: (It's only about 3 minutes --- AND WELL WORTH IT!)

To make it easier for you to find, I'm inserting my book here. (Please read "with a grain of salt".) ENJOY! I have perused a bit of Sky's stuff in times past; perhaps I'll take it more seriously and search for the portion you mentioned. And YES, Doctrinal Section is where I post mostly. However, I don't get to GS all that often any more. But maybe that will change back, having seen your "most kind" words to me. Love, Mel Elliott. Genesis One God's Table of Contents to the Bible.pdf

Grace, my beloved sister: So --- Ya wised up after only 10 years, huh? Well, "You're a better man than I Charlie Brown!" I stayed from 1975 to 2008 (33 years total). And I had "a mind to leave" about 1995 or so, but "hung in there" yet another 13 years. And why, you ask? Did I say before that I didn't want to "go on and on"? That's still my heart's intent here. But HELL --- ya just pushed my button! So, enjoy "the show". Ironically, it was the very notion of Biblical Research which got me interested initially --- yet it was (my own independent) Biblical Research which finally provided a way out for my wife and I. As with many, I was under the (false) impression that The Way had the skinny on Biblical research, and was proud to be on the avant-garde with such an organization! (As we now understand, I couldn't have been more wrong.) And I was a good little Wayfer too: I was a Twig Leader/Coordinator a few times and went WOW thrice --- in '77, '79 and '90. Concerning giving: My wife & I were very successful in the secular realm. Eventually, we were giving at the 25% level, which (at times) amounted to over $10K/year. (I just can't believe the local Corps once confided in us that we might be giving too much! But perhaps they were merely jealous, struggling at their own daunting task to reach 15% as an example to the rest of the ministry...even as encouraged to by HQ, which I found out later on.) I had always LOVED to study the Scripture. And once I gleaned all I could about the research principles (which are about 95% common knowledge anyway...and not their own!) I set out to perhaps discover some new things for myself, many of which weren't in the collaterals --- which certainly wasn't popular to do! (Ha! Ha!) Over the years, I was shot down time and again by my Twig Leaders, etc, etc --- who had no vision, except as directed from HQ! However, they still put up with me although (in their eyes) I was hashing the Word to pieces! Eventually, I learned to keep my mouth shut and held many discovered gems in my heart. Anyway, it was in June of 1988 when I had a strange sort of vision. Now, I won't elaborate on that event here, but it was definitely phenomenal. Through it, I believed I had direction from above to look into something quite remarkable in the Word. Honestly though: At the time, I considered it to either be the worst trick ever played on me by evil spiritual forces to miss the mark OR the greatest personal revelation I had ever received from God himself (or perhaps now, as I'm learning a bit --- from my "big brother" JC). But I kept at it, studying on my own (without help from TWI) to prove whether or not my idea could truly hold water. I really desire not to "go on and on". So to suffice, let me say that it turned out just as I had envisioned it. Over the years I tried to introduce it to the leadership, to no avail. I was shot down again and again. (Oh, the war stories I could tell!) Though (in '95, after about 7 years of intense research) I had it all pretty much worked out, I was adamant in supposing that (eventually) the leadership would see it; and that all of the disappointment, frustration, pain and misery would be over, even as a mother's travail in childbirth ceases just after delivery. But that was just not to be, for they continued opposing my research until the very end --- when it finally became obvious that their ignorance (unbelief) was not apistia (as I had tried to suppose all along) but apitheia! They just didn't give a damn (were apathetic) concerning my discoveries. So my wife and departed their company for good, even as you had done. And the research? I published it myself (worldwide) in a book --- which is available at GS for download, if ya like. (See my profile page.) Well, enough of my silly ranting. Thanks for listening. God Bless!

I don't want to go "on and on", but I do have "something or other" to say here: And I'll try to be brief: I fondly remember my early years with The Way --- in the early 70's when there seemed more genuine love around. Sometimes I admit that grace may have "overbounded" at times, but if I had the choice between too much GRACE or too much LAW, I'd choose the grace every time! Hence, part of the mask: Over time, things did become more organized and strict --- (and yes!) the Corps was browbeaten by VP. Things got much more intense though, after Craig became Pres. And eventually, it was "law on steroids"! I'm just fine and dandy now. I'm trying to emulate that GRACE, and am not very concerned if I choose "somewhat poorly" at times. (I take the 5th!) One of my favorite verses is this: Ro 14:22 --- Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. Peace to all here!

Yeah Rocky! Semantics can sometimes get in the way of a great "meeting of the minds". Don't know why I thought of this, but here goes: Do you remember Pres Clinton being "drilled" about having sex with Monica Lewinsky? And his answer was something like: "Well, that depends upon how you define sex!"

Try it with "Light" --- another interestingly different read. (Beware: As with "love', it's HUGH!

SORRY ALL --- for not having visited my topic here in quite some time. (I've been busy working in collaboration on a related topic with a friend, for possible publication this year.) Goldstar: I'm glad we agree on the "curious relationship" which seems to exist among both the natural and supernatural realms. As far as the "sun and Christ go", their relationship is quite wonderful to behold. And I've done much in trying to be concise, so as not to belabor the readers. However, "cutting corners" in an attempt to save time does have its drawbacks! (Ha!) I agree with you that JC is not "The Great Light", for (in essence) he's just a "chip off the old block", so to speak. Now as far as the sun and moon are concerned, I have good reasons to suppose Jesus relates with the sun and John (the Baptist) with the moon: Hint: John said "I am not that light [JC], but am come to bear witness of that light." Just as the moon has no real light of it's own, neither did John. He was merely a "reflection of the sun". AND: It seems more sematically accurate to refer to God himself as LIGHT (not "great light" or "greater light", but more like "light itself". Then, Jesus would be as "great light" even as John is also (semantically) "great light". However: Of the "two great lights", Jesus would be the greater and John the lesser. (See the 4th day in Genesis 1, where God speaks of the "two great lights" (with one being greater than the other). ALSO: As I have seen, the 7 days in Gen 1 appear to relate in a wonderful way with the 7 administrations: And the 4th day represents the 4th Administration (The Gospel Period, or Christ Administration) --- where we see that which pertains to "the 4th time", which (of course) includes the records of both Jesus and John. I hope that adds a "little more light" on this vast subject for you. (LOL) Taxidev: We ARE in basic agreement. Anyone who supposes "true science" doesn't line up with the way God himself designed the natural realm --- is thinking foolishly. I rather like your logic that (when there seems a discrepancy) the error lies "within the inherent corruption of the testing process itself". "Manipulated science" is just another way of what the Bible refers to as "science falsely so called". Ro 1:20 --- For the invisible [spiritual realities] things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made --- even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: And YES! I am indeed in sheer AWE of what God created; and ALSO in how he so wisely chose to tell us all about it --- by wording things in such a "peculiar, quite precise and most pithy way". Chockfull: I too had become very narrow-minded in my relationships with other Christian groups because of how The Way influenced me. I'm happy to report that I'm FAR FROM THAT these days. I can associate with ANY GROUP I like without fear of reprisal! So what if I'm speaking with someone who still thinks "water's the way to go" when being baptized? So what if I choose to have a meaningful conversation with someone who happens to think that JC is really God? I can glean MUCH from many places now! (And you'd be surprised what you can learn by making friends with those practicing Judiasm --- WOW! Bolshevik: I enjoyed skimming over those "10 reasons". Some very interesting notions there (from the constellations) --- that's for sure! Thanks for posting! Chockfull: Certainly "the city" refers to "New Jerusalem" (of the future). And I doubt (like hell!) that somehow Jesus (aka: "the lamb") will be transformed into a "burning mass of hydrogen", so he can be a suitable replacement for the sun. (LOL) My topic here only refers to the "curious semantic usage" of the term "great light" as it relates to BOTH the sun and Jesus Christ in Scripture, so (of course) I tend to view these as figurative. (And the notion of "electricity" and "light bulbs" makes me chuckle!) As far a "rolling the dice" with interpreting (the book of) Revelation: I find it fits very nicely with "the entirety of Scripture" --- that is, when one decides to employ "the same semantic terminology" as God used while authoring the rest of the Bible, beginning with Genesis Chapter One. When we compare similarly used words and phrases which are seen throughout, the "parallels" are simply amazing to see --- so that even Revelation becomes a "much less mysterious" book.

You're absolutely correct, Twinky. Discussing Biblical admins here is definitely "off topic". (And I rather alluded to that myself much earlier in this thread.) It does belong elsewhere. And there should be no reason for "mod intervention", as I'll politely discontinue further remarks on this thread. If robbs wants to continue trying to make some point here, that's fine. And (since his last post was on Oct 23rd, 10 days ago) it appears he just might be finished here himself anyway. Peace!

TLC: Just a note for clarification: This is NOT to pick at how you worded things, but to explain why I responded to you the way I did as a result. (I "get it now"; but at first, I didn't.) You said: "If Eden (as you've referred to it) is counted as the first, after the fall would be the second, after the flood (c. Noah) the third, the law (i.e., Moses) was the fourth, the gospel of grace (i.e., Paul - not Pentecost) the fifth, after the gathering the sixth, the return of Christ the seventh, and the new heavens and earth the eighth. At least, that's currently how I see it ..." At first, I supposed you were summarizing what you supposed my perspective was to that point (ie: currently). But later on, I realized you had actually presented your own take on the admins! Therefore, it had seemed curious to me why you supposed that my 4th one would be The Law, (when I actually see it as 3rd) and that my take wouldn't include a Christ Admin, etc. To be perfectly clear, let me project "my false assumption" into your statement: "If Eden (as you've referred to it) is counted as the first, [then the following is how I suppose your take on admins would play out] ==> after the fall would be the second, after the flood (c. Noah) the third...At least, that's currently how I see it ..." SO: That's why my next response to you was the outline, as you correctly called it --- so you would more clearly understand my overall perspective. How silly of me! Nonetheless, we do have each other's general take on the 7 admins, which is good for now.

Yes, TLC: In my eyes, you're being most fair to me. (And outline is a fair description.) And in the interim (as you put it), I don't mind our "making a few generalizations" concerning our different vantage points; and (in some brief sense, for the time being) why we're prone to suppose so. It does bless me that you want to look at my book in detail. God knows I really don't mind so much if I have to explain even deeper here, answering questions about "whatever of the seven times" you pick; although we can both envision how bouncing around, back and forth could become somewhat confusing. (However, we're both fairly intelligent; so I see no real harm in that, during the interim.) A "more straight-lined" discussion may follow when you're "basically up to speed" with my reasoning, per the book; and I'm confident that (then) a more orderly approach will be much easier to follow and build upon (from the beginning, to see how it progresses through time). To be honest: Overall, I'm not 100% sure of my findings. Although I believe the logic behind them to be somewhat convincing, that's not the final proof. (For all I know, I could be dead wrong about all of this!) But at least in time, you'll be able to perceive more precisely why it seems to make so much sense to me. (And if there's something you wish to add later on, understanding my perspective will make it much easier for you to help me unravel things here and there, if need be...or perhaps to even reinforce in some places where we agree.) Now, back to your comments in particular: Concerning "time 2", I believe I see your perspective about "the times of ignorance"...which might indeed "span a hell of lot more time" than merely the time of the flood, to be brief. I also see your mention of "the covenant". (We might just explore that avenue at a later time.) Do forgive me for the following, but sometimes I laugh to myself about God's covenant in the bow to Noah: Basically, he promised that "the waters wouldn't destroy all flesh again". What seems funny to me is what I imagine God might say, sometime later on: "Hey, I never said anything then about fire and brimstone and 100-pound hailstones...that was just about the water...Ha! Ha! Ha!" (My wife thinks my humor is rather sick at times.) You said: Jesus Christ (and his followers) all lived by and under the law of Moses. Furthermore, I see no notable differences between how anyone can or would be saved during that time, and the times going all the way back to Moses and the giving of the law. (see Luke 10:25-26.) Consequently, I see no real indications, reason or purpose for a separate or distinct "Christ Administration." Salvation seems deep, and varied. Although being "born again" seems most wonderful, I can't imagine some faithful OT believers having something lesser, merely because JC hadn't yet died and rose again. I imagine God has taken that into account, because they believed in those things...looking forward. (And as a result, what they receive might be at least on par with what "today's believers" have.) As for John's baptism, I see that as another kind of salvation for those who couldn't yet become "born again". It must count for something! But then (if The Law extended from Jesus back to Moses, as you said) I wonder why there was no water baptism prior to John? (It was just a thought.) As for a "separate Christ admin", you'll see about that later. I can almost promise you that my perspective (whether it's correct or not) will be plain to see.

My statement "As for the rest of my post (which you didn't comment upon) I feel that for the most part, we're in (basic) agreement…” had ONLY to do with the rest of my post from Friday @ 5:43pm...nothing more. Actually, I meant that as a compliment, since you said "you got it" concerning the fallacy of studying confusion. And the rest of my post concerned how I supposed you "had also gotten" what I said about light, darkness and balance, to be brief. (Sorry if I had somehow sounded ambiguous.) What I meant was that I see you as "very strong on the light side", because of your seeming ability to perceive so much concerning "the dark side". (It had nothing to do with our possible diverging views on certain topics, or of your "state of flux", etc.) Do you suppose you might try to be a little more blunt with me? I promise I won't become angry. I'm certainly not dense, but a more direct approach would make it easier for me to perceive what you're not saying --- in an effort to appear most kind. (I can take it, brother.) Wow -- You have become more direct! (I was commenting in order and just now arrived at your comments concerning God working in you, so to speak.) Let me convey all of that in different words: "A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps." I understand (as you said) our responsibility to use our God-given talents. Truly, what I said had nothing to do with things that don't work out (as though one might blame God later on if things hadn't turned out right, etc). And that's precisely why I had used the phrase your great ideas...the ones that ended up working. (And I apologize for giving the impression that God's always doing it...as though the man is totally out of the loop, merely being some kind of puppet on a string.) One decides what he wants to do; and uses all his talents, personality, skills, etc, to pursue it. And often (while looking back, in prospective) he might see how God's hand was in it (through some of the details which brought his plan to fruition). But until then (as far as he might know) it's HIMSELF doing it...because he wanted to...and because it seemed interesting to him. You said: "So is it no surprise then to stand back in wonder when looking at all the amazing advances in the fields of technology, medicine, the sciences, etc. that showcase our godlike talents of critical and creative thinking." As with you, I'm in awe of much of man's technology; and I enjoy watching The Science Channel, and some others. As for being creative; I see nothing wrong with that. I read that it endears God to see his children emulating him. And even Jesus "considered it not robbery to be equal with God". (hmmm...) Finally, you said: "I even think when we use our talents in benevolence toward our fellowman that is a glory to God – you are fulfilling the purpose for which you were designed." That reminded me of Gal 5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Helping our fellowman as we're able seems a most worthy endeavor indeed! Peace, bro!

I wouldn't actually say the thread failed; rather, it seems to have run it's course for now. But we'll realize more about that if (and when) robbs chimes in again. (It's his post, ya know!) In the meantime, it has "led elsewhere". (And if that's my fault...oh well! At first, I didn't really intend it to diverge this far.) But what the heck? This seems as good a place as any for TLC and I (at least) to discuss our views on Biblical administrations. Starting another Topic elsewhere might be better, but I trust robbs doesn't mind...or perhaps he'd say something. (Besides, I'm not completely sure that "the shootings in Las Vegas" was truly his main concern; perhaps the thread merely began there as a sort of platform from which to lead to something else. But hell...that's just my gut feeling, so it carries little weight.) And if you were being humorous about "blaming the cars", I get it! Per your link: "Witnesses told local media that a vehicle drove down a popular bike path and struck pedestrians and cyclists." Since there's no mention of a driver, it's quite obvious that (semantically, anyway) the car did it!

Thanks for your patience, TLC. Let me say you're "basically on board" with me. However, (and without having to go into "the nuts and bolts") let me clarify things a bit more by giving "an overall look" so there's less misunderstanding between us. (Also, there are what I call "periods of transition" between some of the times, while "the whole story" is being developed.) (1) "Paradise" (Eden): Begins with Adam; ends when he and Eve are banished. (2) (What I call) "The Time of Ignorance" (per Paul @ Mars' Hill - Act 17:30). Technically, this begins just after "the banishment from Eden", but officially (after a period of transition) when God first spoke to Noah concerning the flood. And it ends when God "stopped the rain." (3) "The Law". Technically, it begins "just after the rain stopped", but officially when God "had said [spoken] to Abram", per Gen 12:1. (And just as before, there's a "period of transition" between these two events.) NOTE: It's important to see that "The Law" is comprised of two parts, A & B. A represents "God's overall perfect law" (existing with Abram and beyond) and B represents "the written law" (beginning with Moses' ten commandments, etc). Without going too far, do keep in mind "the two choices" we have in Romans, which compares "the two kinds of faith"; one aligns with Abraham (preferred) and the other with the written law (not preferred). I hope this is clear to you. (4) "Christ Administration" (or "Gospel Period"). It technically begins with the opening of the Gospels, but officially (as "the earthly ministry of JC") after a period of transition --- until "he was qualified" to do so (at age 30, according to the law), having also been baptized by John, whereafter "the spirit came upon him, as a dove..."). (5) "Grace" (aka: "Mystery", "Church Age"). It's pretty much as before, beginning at Pentecost and ending at "the gathering together". [Also, I'm a bit curious as to your reference to Paul, but not Pentecost, which is not only rather new to me, but somewhat interesting as well.] (6) (What I call) "The Day of Wrath". Similar to what Bullinger called 5th (Judgment). Begins at the gathering together and ends when Christ returns as King of Kings. (7) (What I call) "The Day of Judgment". Similar to what Bullinger called 6th (Millennial, or Theocratic). Begins when Christ (as King of Kings) "kicks some spiritual butt" . Ends at God's throne, where he (as KING POTENTATE) settles everything which happened since Adam. END OF "THIS EARTH" (1-7) (8) - if you want to keep counting upward OR (1) - if you prefer viewing a simple beginning, as with Eden. "Paradise" (again, but as New Jerusalem). Begins just after "the throne" as "a new earth". Ends --- who knows! (Does it course 1-7 again, as before? Hmmm...) Sorry for the length. (I merely wanted to be as clear as it seemed feasible.) And (if you so desire) I'll provide more specifics even as you request, as I have proved nothing.

Having perused only a few of your recent posts elsewhere, I deem you serious (and honest) in your request for "more info". Although my book is presently available at GS, it always seems a bit doubtful to me that people here will actually take time to read it. (Besides, we all have "other fish to fry", huh?) Nevertheless, I'll try to "boil it down" enough to satisfy your curiosity for the present: Somehow, I see "a rather curious correlation" between the 7 days in Gen 1 and the 7 administrations --- if there truly is such a thing! If it weren't for the hundreds (if not thousands!) of "semantic connections" (in the way things are actually worded) in Gen 1, I wouldn't be the least bit tempted to suppose "my pattern" may be valid. Basically, I believe to have found enough evidence to support the notion that Bullinger (and of course, VP) were incorrect in teaching that the 7th administration begins with "the paradise of New Jerusalem" (EW: "The Eternal State", and VP: "Final Paradise, or Glory Administration"). Rather, I find that "the 7th time" begins with JC's return as King of Kings (through "the millennium") and ends with God's white throne of judgment. In short, I see the 7 admins as culminating right after "the end of this earth" (as foretold by OT Prophets) which would necessitate "God's final judgments" as being spiritually perfect (7) --- especially in consideration of all which will happen concerning everyone from Adam to the very last soul here (excepting the born-again of course, who will already have been "judged at the bema"). And after that, it then seems most logical that "the next admin" would be #8 (as "a brand new beginning") which speaks loudly concerning "the new heaven and earth" to come. (Or if one prefers, that it may also be considered as #1 again, paralleling "the paradise of Eden", where the story of man's presence upon earth begins.) As for the only other "major glitch", I see the Patriarchal Administration as totally invalid. For what I seem to have found, "the 2nd time" (basically) entails the account of Noah and the flood, with the third period (The Law) beginning at Abram (later, Abraham). But alas, I've probably caused more questions even by what little I've said here already. So, this seems quite enough for now. But let me close with this: It seems amazing how much easier The Scriptures appear to fit together once these "two glitches" are reconciled. And (believe it or not) it even seems to open up the book of Revelation as never before.

It blesses me that you picked up on my "aspiring to become more concise". Bless you, sir...I do try; but it's not easy! (While awaiting further replies "closer to the topic at hand", I'll entertain your slight diversion --- and a bit more, if you don't mind.) You caused me to consider Matt 23, which I hadn't read in a while. Considering all, much there seems to align with how VP conducted TWI; so your "overall analysis" seems quite logical. To be brief though, verse 9a stuck out to me in particular: "And call no man your father upon the earth..." He encouraged many to call him their Father in the Word, and also had his followers (affectionately) refer to his brother as Uncle. It seems most curious to me how they could EVER have "missed that one"! To me, it's not really that complicated why I don't reference (give credit to) Wierwille for things I teach. I had thought to address that nuance in a PM with you alone; but because my explanation involves mentioning my book, I'll do it here instead. WARNING! [You see: On Oct 6th I uploaded my book to your "wall", and noticed that (since then) there have been 70 downloads of it on this site. So I'll elaborate here, that all the others may understand my position as well as you...and (hopefully) will not be "too overcritical" of my work.] Simply: The book was originally an appeal to those within TWI to "correct a couple of things" concerning Biblical Administrations. (Oops --- here we go! And if this causes a problem with those who oppose that concept, either disregard it all together or look and (at least) see for yourself how logically I put it together. I may be wrong in the end; but it seems right to me, as far as I've taken it.) I tried IN VAIN for many years to impart these findings to them (and perhaps some "new light" as well). And when it finally became obvious to me they weren't the least bit interested in "my research", I eventually left TWI. However, because I saw merit in it and desired others (outside of The Way) to consider the work, I was left with a seemingly daunting task: to (somehow) make my work palatable to those who were never a part of that ministry. SO: The very first thing I did in editing the manuscript was to remove all references to VP and The Way, so as not to steer anyone toward that egocentric and uncaring institution. Even in the bibliography, I removed all references to any of VP's publications. Instead (where I made what I considered valid points) I credited others as my source. Case in point: When I spoke of things related to what was taught in PFAL, I credited EW Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible because (basically, when one takes a good look at it) one can plainly see that VP plagiarized it almost entirely, because it truly appears as a template for VP's "supposedly own" foundational class! In essence (and without having to completely destroy my manuscript...after working on it for over 2 decades!) I "found ways to bypass TWI" while still retaining the overall message. The most daunting thing of all to me at first was: How in the hell can I bring an audience on board who had never studied the Bible at all, being complete novices to certain things the originally projected readers would readily understand, having been exposed to much of what I considered as valid Biblical research principles!" (As I said earlier, the entire project was originally an appeal to my (now former) friends. And therefore, "the point of view while pleading my case" was primarily with THEM in mind.) Wondering how I could possibly accomplish this, I almost gave up. But (by continuing, despite all) I discovered it wasn't as difficult as I had first supposed. I ended up adding 7 Appendices to the manuscript which would "lay out some basics" whereby most anyone could appreciate the book without having to invest years of study to get up to speed. Concerning these, here's an excerpt from my book: "These few appendices have been included to enlighten mainly those who have not previously been exposed to certain basic biblical topics which are integral to the understanding of Genesis One: God’s Table of Contents to the Bible. Even those who consider themselves as biblical scholars already may still find these helpful at times. By reading these, novices and scholars alike will have an equal opportunity to get the most out of this book, and can appreciate a most amazing and wonderful pattern integrated within the Holy Scriptures, designed by God." In addition, all other "basic Biblical research principles" are integrated within the work itself, by example --- without having to teach explicitly about "in the verse, context and used before", etc. etc. (And besides, most of that which TWI would have ignorant people suppose VP put together himself are nothing more than what anyone can know already from either good grammar skills, plain logic or just Googling for themselves. So in my book, [pun intended] he deserves no credit for any of that either!) What remains however, is that a vast amount of "Way-speak" exists throughout the work. I'm very sorry it has to be this way, because (truly) it's impossible to separate truth from error without at least addressing some things which they actually got right. After all, who can argue with that which makes absolute sense, no matter how one explains it? And who knows "the true source" of everything VP taught? (And BTW: To my surprise, I recently understand from GS posts that even Maggie Muggins was drawn from another source. Such pitiful plagiarism!) Regardless, I would only hope that they who read my book will glean something good from it, despite how I worded things at times. I'm rather confident that "if one can put up with the Way-speak" (which honestly, I don't always recognize myself) he'll eventually see what I tried in vain to impart to them. And if not, then please try not to take offense or suppose that (somehow or other) I'm still under their devilish spell. I convey my thanks to all for listening. (And I do apologize for this lengthy post, as I'm still working on being more concise.)

T-Bone: What honesty! I think you're quite safe "in the middle", as it were. As one who carefully weighs things on BOTH sides of the scale before rendering a verdict, you're quite the "juror of gold", which is quite admirable in God's sight. And yes...balance is a great key. Scripturally, this equates to the "Jews and Gentiles", of which "the church" is comprised. (Basically, the Jews are too strict and the Gentiles are too lenient.) Those who are wise are careful not to go too far "to the left hand" (law, or cursing) or "to the right" (grace, or blessing). Just be content in "your own middle"! Since leaving "them" (as with you) I haven't studied as much as I used to --- because I'm more concerned these days about DOING a little of what I know. Instead (as you) I take more time to take care of my wife and things of concern to make sure my promise of "giving her a great life" is secure. I look well into our finances. Our house is paid for. BTW, "you know who" wasn't glad when we took out a mortgage for it --- screw them and their "borrower is servant to the lender" perversion of the Scriptures! Not to brag, but we paid off a 30-year mortgage in 5 years and 2 months. (Needless to say, we would NEVER have saved enough CASH to buy this wonderful home with if we did it "their way"...OK...enough!) Therefore, our "autumn years" look quite bright ahead. If I can say one thing to you it would be this: Ro 14:22 "Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth." So if you allow a bit of LIVING at times (instead of constantly studying the Bible) so what? God knows your heart. And isn't that the point --- to live happily and in peace? And while you're doing "those other things" you spoke of, just keep it in balance and try not to judge yourself too harshly, friend. Yes though, keep searching where your heart takes you. For all you know, what "you decide" to look into just might be God himself allowing you to suppose those are "your great ideas" --- when in all reality, it just may be that HE (just as written) "is working in you to do of his good pleasure"! If you can "read between the lines", consider the possibility of 1Co 12:11 meaning that (as you're already willing, by your own choices and personality) God is behind that already --- according to his plan for you personally...leading you RIGHT WHERE YOU WANT TO GO ANYWAY! Just remember to give him the credit for "those good ideas of yours", because they're probably his to begin with anyway! Peace, brother...

I hear ya, pal! You seem to be very adept at "looking between the cracks" to see what's really going on here. I commend you for your ability to summarize so much with so little! (You're one smart son-of-a-bitch in my book, and I mean that most kindly.) I looked at the links you sent along --- most revealing! I admit myself that a lot of what I believe actually "agrees with what VP taught", but I'm a long way from being a "Wierwillite"! (if you catch my drift, sir...) And if I use a few of his "buzzwords" (ie: Way-speak) at times, it's NOT what he taught that's of concern, but what I learned myself by applying some things he taught that DO WORK. (Although, I'm truly ashamed he plagiarized so much; and he shall answer to that himself someday, before God Almighty!) And yes, sir --- a spade is a spade! (I see it as well, my astute fellow.) And as for that, I seem to be picking at the edges, while you already have your focus on the heart of the matter! As for the rest of my post (which you didn't comment upon) I feel that for the most part, we're in (basic) agreement. Nevertheless, let me close with this: For you to "see the darker side" of this equation so quickly (and without falling prey to the evils which such a mess may [secretly] be comprised of, AND to remain "pure in all things" concerning it) I must conclude that you're very far "on the light side" to comprehend the true gravity of what's really going on here. For you, sir: Prov 29:11 A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards. After what, you ask? Let's see how "the poster" replies next... (Methinks it's really not about "the shootings in Vegas".)

"Stop The Shootings" has been an interesting topic. Although (as of yet) nothing has "actually been concluded" during the discussion, what has come of it are (at the least) "some practical ways" which may aid in lessening it's negative affect upon society in general. (Many thanks to T-Bone for his input along that line.) But alas, the bottom line is: Despite all, the shootings will NOT stop! (LMAO) Although it has taken some interesting twists and turns along the way, it has investigated (to some degree, anyway) the "curious balance" between Scriptural truth and the practicality of medicine. (for instance, the science behind why certain "worldly methods" actually work toward "alleviating chemical imbalances" found among the mentally ill) Nevertheless (and not surprising) remains the fact that (as usual) the discussion has turned toward (in so many words) "What's wrong with The Way?" And why not? After all, the "basic MO of GS" in the first place is to either aid those who've been hurt by TWI in times past, or to warn others that they too (without the assistance of "expert Greasespotters") will eventually succumb to the same! And so, it followed: After T-Bone's "eloquent post" (as deemed by Twinky) analyzing TWI's buzzword "The Word", Rocky and T-Bone both agreed with Twinky that the expression The Word of God is the Will of God "gives them the creeps". And it was suggested that T-Bone begin a new topic with that expression in mind. Ironically (and I mean no offense in saying this, but merely as a sort of cute joke) "the GS guns are always loaded"; and if you're not careful, you'll simply get "shot down"! So I say again: "The shootings will continue." All joking aside, I want to elaborate a bit on that point. It's true that "shootings" do come from both sides of the equation. And the obvious conclusion is that (ultimately) one side is basically "the opposite" of the other, which leads to a point I want to make here: After robbs' short discourse on the Chinese convention of "yin-yang", Bolshevik said to him: "I'm not sure I agree with your first few sentences. I think there's some interesting ideas in there though. Again you've reduced everything to a duality. Three seems to fit better, as a simplification. IMO: Even the yin and yang has an interface --- the third." Bolshevik is correct. There IS a third, which some call "rang" or "chi", etc. And the basic conception of it (according to one expert, at least) is this: "This third force is the force of equilibrium or balance. In it, we find the stillness that is beyond the duality we observe on the surface of creation. It is the place where the apparent conflict is reconciled and the unity in the opposites is observed." This basically describes "an inner peace" (if you will) which may result, despite "the tension which exists" between the extremes of yin and yang --- that is, provided a proper balance is MAINTAINED, which is VERY important in life. Picture a horizontal line with "light" to the left, "darkness" to the right and ZERO in the middle [light <------- | -------> darkness]. And keep in mind (from Eph 5:13b) that "whatever doth make manifest is light". Therefore, what one understands about "darkness" is in direct proportion to what he knows about "light". Now, one must use CAUTION before venturing "too far to the right" (that is, beyond "where he is on the left"). I hope that's clear, but here's an example anyway: Semantically, the "direct opposite" of confusion is peace. (1Co 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion, BUT of peace...") So, it's rather silly to attempt understanding confusion by studying "confusion" itself (that is, by "looking only at the dark side") because one merely becomes "more and more confused" in the process. However! If one looks at "peace" (on the "left side") he'll understand what confusion truly is to the very extent he understands "peace" --- and NO FURTHER. And one is never truly at the "zero point". In this case, the extent of PEACE one feels is merely a measure of the intensity of the light he has attained along that line. Such also is the case with the extremes "love" and "hate". By themselves, they're invisible. However, one experiences love only to the extent he ADHERES to what he learned of it "from the light side", along with also AVOIDING the other "from the dark side" which (by inference, or deduction) is hate. As "this balance" is maintained, one will love to "his fullest extent". (And with more light, he can love even greater.) However, if one seeks to understand hate (by studying hate itself) there can be no balance. Also (despite what one might know about love), practicing hate will keep love behind the scene, as it were --- for darkness itself cannot provide light: Eph 5:13 "But all things that are reproved [discovered] are made manifest [exposed, revealed] by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest [can possibly expose, or reveal] is light." In other words, one cannot discover what a genuine dollar bill is by merely studying counterfeit bills; one can only perceive the deception in these by using a real one as the guide. Gen 1:4 "And God saw the light that it [alone] was good; and God divided the light from the darkness." Well, that's all the "ammo" I wish to spend for the moment. Let the shootings continue!

rrobs: Okay, I agree with your point concerning "good vs evil". In this world, there ARE varying degrees of each. Even concerning the time of the flood, you mentioned "every thought" and "continually" as being strong words in describing the state of the world at the time. And that certainly didn't happen all at once, did it? It was actually a gradual decline, until "God couldn't stand it any longer"; and something finally had to be done. (Hence, the flood.) So of course, things weren't "exactly perfect" between the fall of man and the flood, were they? And even Noah wasn't "perfect" either. However, he was a far cry from the rest of the world; and that made all the difference, or we just wouldn't be here! It is written: "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." (Gen 6:8). So in a sense, it might be said that Noah (and the other 7) were "saved by grace"...and I rather like that connection! Yes indeed, God inspired people to use words in their own vocabularies (including their idioms and customs, etc). So, we should endeavor to comprehend what's written in light of their understanding. (By the way, good example of "fearing God"!) But I like to also take that just a step further, and ask myself: "What was God himself trying to convey to us, even by all of that?" In answering, I like to compare what God said in one place and see how that agrees with what he says in other places. It's sort of like this: In a general sense, we can say that "God spoke the entire Word": 2Tim 3:16a "All scripture is God-breathed..." [lit: "out of the mouth of God"]. BUT! There are also places where God himself is speaking; and I believe these "direct quotes" should carry more weight than "what others were inspired to say upon his behalf" --- merely "as though" God himself was speaking. (ie: And God said: "xxx". I hope that's clear.) Also is the notion of the order of the words used. In a general sense, we might consider Scripture as being "in perfect order", because (as we perceive) it all fits together without contradiction. However, there are places where God takes the time to actually number things in order. And I tend to put more weight upon those special orderings than the rest, which is already in order to begin with (ie: first day, second day...seventh day). Question: Do these "two conventions" (putting extra emphasis on direct quotes by God himself and things numbered in order) sound valid to you? (If so, then we might put those to use.)

rrobs: You said: "Still, I understand that you are just saying that reading about it [science, as in ants or the moth eye] increases appreciation for the things of God..." And that's precisely my point. If (in some little way) I can relate Scripture with (true) science, then my awe of God increases. And as a result, there's a "little more reverence" behind my daily devotions to him. I see you have an 8" Celestron. Impressive! (I bet it's worth $2k or so.) And no doubt, having read Bullinger's book Witness of the Stars has enhanced your appreciation for God's magnificence and splendor. Now, answering to your reply (but not "in order"): You said: "Adam of course started a whole chain of actions that were non-functional and didn't work the way God intended." Not to pick, but there's a slight flaw in that logic, because everything truly does function according to God's design! Granted though, it's a fact that events don't exactly flow according to his best wishes. However: Despite that (within God's original, perfect design) he had already made provision for "these deviations at times" in what I consider as his contingency plan --- so that his "primary will" basically continues onward (precisely as planned), despite the "slight interruptions along the way". Case in point: Certainly, God didn't intend Lucifer to "mess up the earth" by starting the war in heaven. However, God had already planned for such an event, and dealt with it accordingly. (Basically, he "restored the earth", etc...and "the whole story" continues with the record of Adam in Eden.) Another "interruption" (as it were) was the Great Flood of Noah's time, which was not God's original intent. Yet again, God had that all thought out ahead of time; and the story continues developing as we read further. SO: Ultimately, God's original intent prevails, despite the slight delays at times. Consider this one verse: Is 45:7 "I [God] form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Interesting, huh? Yet God himself is not evil, but "good always"; and he certainly understands how to "fight fire with fire". Enough on that for now. You asked me, Have you ever looked at the words "good" and "evil"? Despite how the ancient Hebrews may have viewed good and evil (according to "tov" and "ra", as you elaborated on) I prefer to view both of these terms in the ultimate sense --- just as though they're equivalent to light and darkness. And this is simply because of Gen 1:4a "And God saw the light, that it was good...". In closing, I reiterate your having said: "I hope that clears a few things up." And finally (for what it's worth) --- Thanks for calling my stuff great. Humbly, it's simply the best I think to know thus far.

rrobs: First, a general note on how you and & communicate: Overall, I think it's going well. Obviously, (after all) you're in agreement that (true) science is in line with Scripture. However, you hadn't made that quite clear by the way you've been wording some things. (And that's okay; as I said earlier, I try to be patient.) You might have noticed how "I'm not so quick to judge", as when I said "...it seems you're still fighting the notion...". This method was rather ingrained into my thinking while I was an air traffic controller. (And since you were a pilot, you can relate.) We said things like "Agar 27, you're wheels appear up." And that wording "protects" the controller in the event he's actually mistaken. Nevertheless, I see we're (basically) "on the same page" concerning the relationship between "science and Scripture". (Whew!) Second, I like the way you "quote" my entire post at times and then (in between, in red) insert your reply. This method helps a lot, because it rather "streamlines" the dialogue. I might try that too. (Thanks!) I'll continue "our discussion" HERE in a future post. (I'll be "back in a few"...)