TLC

Well, I do recall it said (paraphrasing vpw from at least one occasion, probably more)... that to "lock everyone in the room" and don't come out until they all are agreed... was (more or less) the way they probably operated at Antioch (and supposedly as in Acts 15.) But hey... even if that were so, bringing that thought up to the 20th century and throwing a couple dozen "A type" personalities with oversized egos into the mix, and voila... you wouldn't need much imagination to predict what that might produce. However, in fairness to what is truth and what is fiction, the research fellowship at TWI (at least in the initial years of its formation) did display a reasonable amount of openness and tolerance to "new thoughts" and ideas. (Much more than anything I've yet seen or read from anyone giving it allowance for here...)

Okay, I concede that the "proud" comment was unnecessary, and not well suited in my previous post. It's taken me years to chisel off some of my own pride and egotism, and after having to face and wrestle with the very difficult task of learning to adjust my own well developed "intellectually superior" approach to biblical research, there is really no reason for me not to be much more tolerant of it in others. And, for whatever it's worth (maybe not much, in the opinion of some), this was not (and is not) merely a line designed or intended to safely dismiss an opposing position. It's a statement of what I've (quite painfully) had to learn in my own life, and it's not my place to expect you or anyone else to likewise learn or know it.

Thanks for the format fix, it was beyond me. (Nor could I correct the typos.) The blank citations were intentional; it was an effort to make the post shorter and less complicated (even though somewhat less sensible), the time/date stamp giving sufficient reference for anyone wanting (or caring) to read the entire previous post. The point being, there was a background for the comments, and even though far from being "desperate" about anything relating to it, I found myself somewhat overwhelmed by (and not caring one whit for) the theatrics of it.

Just want to let you know, chockfull, that I very much appreciate your posts on this subject matter, and find myself mostly in agreement with you (with some relatively insignificant exceptions, of course.) I think it unfortunate that "the approach" (for lack of a better way to say it) to biblical research that most of us were taught (or learned) in TWI was no where near as good as we were all lead to believe. However, I think we would agree that it did (and still does) lead to one helluvalot of intellectualism and egotism, and very little genuine spirituality.

I am neither thrilled nor anxious to say what is to follows, as it is sure to draw more fire, but I feel compelled to make one more post. (And it may be my last.) The only "desperation" (if there is any) I sense might be here is the incessant efforts to derail any attempt to look at this issue from a new perspective, in defense of your already established position on it (and continued claim the "the Bible plainly says" what you and whomever is with you say it says.) What is plain, is that I am "late to the party" (though at this point, I somewhat detest even quoting those words.) Perhaps if I were to have propose the very same questions over two years ago that I've posted here recently, there would have been a more honest reception and consideration of them. However, I was most certainly not at the place two years ago in my own thinking and understanding that I am today. And believe it or not, I did read (though rather quickly) through this nearly the entire thread before ever posting here the first time (which I tried to make fairly obvious in my initial posts here...) My second post on this thread actually made reference to something in a post of yours, Raf, after which I brought up several questions (none of which engendered much of a response from anybody): Here was a another question in the next post: To thwart the accusation of having never stated something of my opinion, where I stood, or was approaching the issue from, I posted in plain language here: As I began to more carefully consider what was (and wasn't) being said or brought forward in this thread on the biblical doctrine of SIT, more questions (or rephrasing earlier ones) began to come to mind, which I then posted here: Raf responds to the post with (more a less) a restatement of his own position, and implies any effort to look at this another way is born of despartion: and here: and here: Which I spoke out against here: Which you poo-pooed here: (part 2, continues in next post...) So I rephrased things here, and asked another question (relating to my previous questions, none of which have ever received a response): But then comes this concession: Yet, here we are, still entertaining your skepticism, and you still making sure that your point stays in front and on top of everything (and everyone) else. So, I back off and try to highlight something that I see as being a major issue, in this post: And try heading back towards by earlier questions with this post: But, no. Things get steered right back to your invisible dragon: So I try this approach:: Which you immediately cast aside: And you again put forward your apparently cast in cement position with this: So I bypass that and try rephrasing some of my earlier questions with this post: (part 3, continues in next post...) Which, aside from what I though was much undeserved criticism from WW, only drew this response: Aside from your "one thought" and your proud position of what YOU think and say the Bible says, it seems rather obvious to me that any other discussion of what the scriptures might really mean or say is going to continue to be run over and trample beneath some superior word study of the issue (which quite ironically, is in the same egotistical fashion to how the much detested TWI so infamously did its great "research" work.) And this post pretty much sums this all up: Problem is, Raf, is that any "exploring" (so to speak) must be done on your terms, or it gets immediately castigated. So, aside from the next post (which will be address to chockfull) I'll simply bow out of any further discussion on SIT.

I actually think it's a fair question, but one that will be probably get poo-pooed and ignored. When I have more time, I may return to it. When myopia sets in, I suppose everything does look the same.

Raf, because of the complexity of this issue I see no practical way to avoid revisiting certain verses from I Cor. 14 repeatedly and questioning what they might have meant to those in the first century, and what application or nuance of meaning they have (or makes the most sense) for Christians today. There are simply different (sometimes changing) perspectives to view it from, or shine light through it.

Okay, you're right. My mistake. I should have said "went much further south after '85." How about my other question, sky? When did you think to start fighting for the "little guy"?

You misunderstood my post. I wasn't shifting or steering poo away from, or around him (and I'm probably much more aware of how "the ministry" evolved than you appear to be giving me credit for.) When I ask whether or not it "originated" with him did not mean that I thought it somehow magically "avoided" him. I see it as passing through him. Yes, he could have stopped it (as can be said of us all.) But he didn't.

Why so testy WW? If I agree with, or have no problem understanding, the rest of your post... must I then also comment on it before questioning the portion of it that confuses me or that I disagree with? Perhaps so, if I am to be polite and courteous to every post that I respond to. I all too easily forget that we live in a society where everyone is so sensitive to so much (that I personally am not), that I have to use the same caution in responding on a message board that is required in face to face communications. So, my apologies for offending you. It wasn't because of malicious intent or design. It didn't make sense to me, so yes, I questioned it. Again, please accept my apologies if my way or manner of questioning it offended you so much. I'm not trying to knock some chip off your shoulder (I didn't know one existed.) Well, it seems that I disagreed that ALL accounts were recorded and accounted for in the Book of Acts. What is written in Acts are indeed accounts, and there are accounts all through it, but in my mind not all of the accounts mentioned or referred to in scripture are written and recorded in Acts. Paul very plainly states in I Cor. 14 that he spoke in tongues "more than ye all." Yet, there is no mention of him doing so in Acts. Maybe that doesn't somehow technically qualify as an "account" in your mind, or by Webster's definition (it's debatable), but it did in mine... so I think you're nitpicking, and unfairly expecting me (and others) to know and understand the exact definition and perception of something that you hold in your mind when you speak of something. Furthermore, it actually comes across as very condescending that I didn't meet your high standard of expertise in defining just what an "account" is suppose to mean. If I was (and am) wrong, then poo on me for not understanding or agreeing with your more intellectually accurate statement. Yeah, that's my question. Again, my apologies if I didn't ask it correctly or politely enough to avoid your hammer, or if I appear to be a prima donna. (Not that anyone else here ever is.)

As "wrong" as things were with vp, there's little doubt that it went south from there after '85. And if blame or ill-will can be pushed back, why bother stopping at one that's dead already? did it originate with him? Yeah, I "get" that some were directly affected by him, while many more here were by those that were very close to him. But let's not forget that this is a spiritual warfare, with spiritual reasons and causes, not merely flesh and blood.

You stuck that long? late 90's? (I seem to recall you mentioning elsewhere you were at HQ for 5 yrs, sometime in the late 70's early 80's,) When did you think to start fighting for the "little guy"? ...just curious, I suppose.

One of the difficulties in posting on the doctrinal side of this issue is finding a sensible place to start, given the magnitude of juxtapositions against it. Apparently, the effort to clarify how some here might view the communication between the either the serpent and Eve, or between God and man, isn't resonating very well. So, maybe there is some other way to introduce a consideration for what God's point of view might be on some of this stuff. Maybe this has all been hashed over on some other thread here at GSC (there are implications that it already has), and it's all old hat to most here. If so, I haven't seen it, nor does it appear to have been discussed much (if at all) thus far in this thread. So pardon my "late to the party" questions and appearance here, and for whatever it's worth, it really wasn't my choice of most interest. It was brought up, and it seems a few small or choice comments appear to have started the ball rolling. Given there's that much interest here, then so be it. Not that it can't be done by quoting much scriptural, but to save time and not be an insult to the biblical expertise and knowledge of some here, perhaps there is a quicker way to arrive at an acceptable basis for better future discussions of this issue. If there is a blathering idiot walking down the street, speaking to no one but himself, does God know what the thoughts and intents of his heart are? If so, how does He know? Does God know because of something in the verbalizations that "communicated" to God what thoughts are in the idiot's mind and heart, even though the verbalizations from his mouth are not even close to any dialect or language? Furthermore, if you suppose that God "just knows" what the thoughts of the mind and heart are, then what purpose does SIT actually serve (regardless of whether it is a dialect of men, a tongue of angels, or the blatherings of an idiot)? (Forgive me for such questions if need be, for I fear I am a Socratic by reason of genetics... and it's exceedingly difficult for me to appear otherwise after 60 some years of it. I am merely looking for what "common ground" can or can't be found here, and these are questions that rolling around in my head. It is how I learn, and reason things out.)

Say what? Who's imagination fabricated this? If it's plainly written that no man understandeth (ICor.14:2), why the contradiction with scripture?

While I do agree with the statement, it may not be in the same way that you think. So, it would help if you were to clarify which "Church" you intend to refer to. Because in and of itself, it can be applied to different "called out" groups (or assemblies) of people. Well, I don't agree, based on a technicality. I would agree that it (the Day of Pentecost, Act 2) must have certainly appeared (to Peter and others that were with him that day) to be the beginning of the fulfillment of certain promises/prophecies the were made to and for Israel, even if it were (in reality) the beginning of it, it surely was not the end or complete fulfillment of said prophecies. I think (it's my opinion... so, take it for what it is) that one of the great misperceptions about the book of Acts is that anything said or done by the apostles is the absolute "Word and Will of God" that is written elsewhere in scripture. But that's not the design or purpose of it. I believe is to be a very accurate recording of events that actually took place, regardless or whether they were in or out of alignment with the will of God. In other words, it's what was actually said or done. Check this out, in verse 14: But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: Does it say that Peter spoke by revelation from God? No. Does it anywhere say that Peter was "moved by the spirit," and spoke by divine utterance or inspiration from God? No. So, if YOU think that he did, then you might be wrong. What is written, is what he (right or wrong) actually said. His motive is NOT revealed in this verse, so to presume that it is "the voice of God" is an assumption that far too many have (and still do) make. What is your position on dispensationalism, Steve? (might help to better explain better your perspective on some of this stuff you're writing...) This is a point I think needs further consideration.

eiy, yei, yei. (or... "oy vey" if ye'r jewish.) Enough already with the dissing of vp on this thread. It's much less distracting to stay focus on what you think is right, rather than so much on why he's wrong. (Besides, I thought y'all pretty much agreed that none of what he taught was really his original ideas...)

To me, that seems to strike rather close to empowering a linguist with the ability to prove God. If he says, YES, it's a language... does it really prove that it is a language, or does it merely call into question the expertise and ability of the linguist to detect a language? Inevitably, I think it will always come down to what (or who) we (as individuals) choose to believe and trust to be right or "real". Evidently, not as much as you seem to think it should. I actually recall seeing some actors do it on "Who's Line Is It" some number of years ago. Yeah, at first, it did strike me as sounding like something similar to tongues. However, after a closer listen, I wasn't so persuaded to think it was. Now, I'm no linguistic expert, by any means. But to my eyes and ears, it just didn't look or sound as effervescent or effortless. (And these guys were phenomenal improv actors...) I agree that should be kept separate. (But a certain amount of overlap is nearly unavoidable.)

Well, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but in discussing the scriptural aspects of it, I would think that part of understanding its benefits would also require pondering different ways to look at the reasons for it, including from God's perspective. Which may not be an easy task, but not necessarily or altogether an impossible one. But, it is one that extends outside the pages of I Cor. 12-14, and reaches as far as touching the theological foundation for it. So, I don't see "what the Bible says" as a hard and fast boundary for what can or might be "on topic" here.

Did I not already state somewhere that my mind can (perhaps too often) work in strange ways? Well, that's more or less what I thought. Which, is exactly (in my mind, anyways) the reason why it will never be proven with empirically based evidence.

If a scenario were presented wherein the use of an invisible, undetectable (by the five senses), dragon (so to speak) was the most effective (if not the only) practical means for God to achieve the desired/intended results, would it in any way validate that such a beast must exist?

It could be, but I've never studied his life carefully enough to venture a guess (and it was a much different time.) https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs

1Cor.3:9ff It it's wood, hay or stubble... puff... and it's like it was never there.

As you said, it's a story (sad as it may be), and I didn't have much to say about it (especially in the doctrinal thread.) And there's pieces missing (which are probably lost or forgotten), which cause me to think that I might have lived in a different world from what some people say they experienced. My last post was a sort of "knee jerk" reaction to what appeared to be someone labeling (and I'm not sure that's the best, or even the right word to use) or thinking themselves a (knowledgeable ?) Christian, and then boasting that they don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's a hard concept for me to imagine, much less wrap my head around it. I just didn't (and still don't) encounter that sort of brash attitude in real life. (And no, I don't live in a bubble, never talking to all sorts of people, from all kinds of religious backgrounds.)

Wow... It's incredible to think such things were said. I suppose the logical thought following that is, You don't have to believe God raised Jesus Christ from the dead to be a Christian.

Ever wonder about why this verse was chosen, given the dispensational interpretation of other scriptures? It was spoken by Jesus Christ, who's ministry was a part of the keeping of the law, to the nation of Israel. (not sure who all might see it, but when you really think about it, there's an inconsistency in it... and so it was with the building of TWI. A faulty foundation.)