TLC

"Allah" really isn't much more than the Arabic word for God, and it's a very close transliteration of the Aramaic word for God. Perhaps the divergent issue in this question would boil down to defining what is and isn't "worship." After all, it is written that even devils believe that there is one God. Does that mean or say that they worship Him? No, I hardly think so. Thus, it may be that different religions believe that there is one (and the same) God, the Creator of all men. They may even think or suppose that they, in their own way, give proper reverence and worship to Him simply by believing that He exists. But, what if what they are doing or offering is, in reality, nothing short of disobedience, and that which they do does not bring or give praise or honor or glory to Him, with either their lips or their hearts? So, I think it's a trick question.

What can it "enhance," considering that it's not understandable? (This actually relates to a question just posted in the doctrinal thread.) Why suppose that it's either mental or physical? (Beside, I don't recall it was taught that way at TWI.)

As much as I might prefer more said on how some think spirit says or hears anything, I may as well bring 1 Cor.14:4 into the picture and pose another question. If it's written that SIT "edifies" himself (or themselves), then... how so? Or, in what way if it's very plainly stated that he does not understand what is said?

As I did. But aside from stating one's own baseline perspective and experience with it (as seen above), I don't know that I see any more benefit resulting from extolling the genuineness or profoundness or betterment (aka, getting "one up") of what one person's experience might be over another. It's a very personal thing, from what I see or think of it, unless or until we get to the doctrinal side of it. If it doesn't mean or do anything for someone, then so be it. The only thing that I suppose could or would ever change that is a shift in their doctrinal belief concerning it, which, if happening merely as a result of someone else's stated (and unproveable) experience with it, might just as easily reverse as a result of someone else's testimony concerning it. So, unless or until there is some doctrinal clarity based upon scripture, the variations of personal experiences with it might make for interesting or nice stories (or not so nice "food fights")... but I don' see that they'll be viewed or valued for anything much more significant than that.

I'm hesitant to post in this thread, not merely because I'm more intrigued by the doctrinal side of it, but also because I was somewhat taken back by the differences of experience with it in TWI. In brief, about all I knew about SIT prior to TWI is what I read of it in the Bible and that some people did it, that all should be able to, and that I wanted to. (I had never actually heard it.) About all it took was hearing two people in a believer's meeting (and seeing that each had their own unique tongue) to later that day lock myself in a closet (so to speak), pray to God for "the real deal" (in so many words), and then do it. What I did (and heard myself doing) then hasn't changed much in over 40 years. And to be honest about it, I don't believe that anything TWI (or anyone else) could, would or did do after that would ever persuade me any more (or any less) that it is not "the real deal." Because "that deal" always was, and still is, between me and God. And I don't believe He is an Indian giver. So I don't know, and can't say what others experienced. Other than, it looks like it may have different. (But I don't know.)

"seed" actually carries with it quite a variety of meanings, depending on the context its usage. It's not a "one size fits all" term, and I actually don't recall ever thinking that it was. (so, it's not clear to me exactly "which" usage of it you had in mind.) But I also know there were a lot of different things said about it (even among corps) that made no sense to me and I disagreed with (even back in those days.) There was a vpw usage of it, however, that puzzled me for years. The "seed boys." I couldn't make any sense of it, any which way I looked at it. 'Til a real life incident hit me like a lightning bolt and stirred me to look at it from an entirely different perspective. Bottom line? I now believe it was taught wrong.

Awh... now ya done it. ya went ahead and pooped in the pool, and there it sits... floating around.

After a quick cursory read through it, you're right, you "logic" still doesn't make much more sense to me. In fact, aside from a need or desire to align it with numerical significance (or something to that effect - most notable in the interpretive index of Genesis 1), there appears to be no other reasons or explanations as to why the separations are (or should be) there. I haven't looked all that carefully (or closely) at Schoenheit's presentations in the area, but on first glance, they appear to make more sense that what TWI stands by. However, I don't necessarily agree with or care for much of his commentary on the matter, and neither did I see where he has given a great deal of explanation for why he separates it the way he does. (He does mention several different things that change, but then it's like... hey, this is the way it is, so don't bother to think much more about it.) He does come up with 8 Administations, "agrees" that they aren't an age or time period (per se), but then turns around a few paragraphs later and describes them as an "epoch" or "age." If there's a chart somewhere on his site where he sets them out more plainly to see or consider, I didn't see it. (But them, neither did I look all that hard for one.) At this point in time, I'm inclined to finger a failure to properly identify the start of the dispensation of grace as the biggest single issue I have with it, with yours, or with TWI's. This being an issue that I'm not prepared to explain (or defend) in great detail, I'm more open to suggesting it as something meriting further discussion rather locking horns over it. However, there seems to be very little (in any) acceptance of the notion that God can and does reveal new things at different point in time, which distinctly and definitely changes the way that He interacts with mankind.

Of course. (So there's no need to scan squat.) If/when considering how spirit speaks (or hears) anything, the "contact point" of interconnectivity (or communication) does become an issue to ponder. And the so called "Great Principle" appears to be as confusing as it is helpful. Spirit to spirit to mind. Spirit to spirit might be one thing; spirit to mind another. So little is known about either spirit or the mind, most of it is like groping in the dark. The only salient points to any of this may be that spirit can and does communicate with spirit, that spirit can and does influence the mind (whether we recognize it as such, or not), and that the mind (as it was originally designed by God) in some way should have the potential to detect or perceive things which are spiritual.

I'd second it.

Given that we are in doctrinal, I'd like to make a comment or two about how "doctrinal" issues in general are approached. (And I'll no doubt step across several boundaries of the thread.) Like many others here, I was likewise schooled in many of the basic tenets of research at TWI. (Perhaps one of differences I seem to have experienced though, was the amount of control over what should or could be researched that is reported by some here. From my perspective, precious little... if anything... was off limits. Maybe part of that was simply my perception of it... but neither was I that unfamiliar with the research team at HQ.) In short, the great majority of it was built or done (however you care to say it) around the study and working of languages (primarily Greek, of course, but it didn't exclude Aramaic or Hebrew.) In the many years since, it appears that this is still the same foremost means or manner that most here, and in the offshoots (that I've looked at) of the Way - especially including those in Walter C's Research Group(s), use to consider, reconsider, reformat or simply discuss doctrine. However, there is such a propensity to indulge in the minutia of languages, that it seems that a broader scope of the truth is mistakenly shelved or systematically overlooked and ignored. (And don't think that I too haven't been there and done that. Being so guilty of it is, in part, why I see it more easily now.) Furthermore, while some may have never bought into this methodology of "research," take into consideration that this was not at all restricted to how TWI did (or does) "study" the Word. It's actually very common among scholars and intellectuals, and I don't think of it as an easy obstacle for some to overcome (or look around.) It tends towards a certain myopia, much like staring at a computer screen all day tends to ruin your vision. I say this, in part, because of how long I was stuck in the same position of having almost no other way to "think differently" about many scriptures. In other words, if I wanted to consider what else a verse could mean, I resorted to little more than picking away at the exact word meanings of the language(s) it was written in to see "what else" might show up there. Not that this was (or is) ineffective. It works extremely well for doing just that. (Problem is, it probably does it too well, being that's about all it does.) Consequently, I realize that how I appear to be approaching this issue of SIT makes no sense whatsoever to some (or many) of you, as I seem to be looking at it from the side of the Sagan's invisible dragon, and thinking about "How does (any) spirit speak or hear?" Is the only way to think about or consider how the spirit itself makes intercession, or how my spirit prayeth, to pick apart the meaning of each word in the verse where these things are mentioned? Myopia has set in, I tell you.

Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not making much sense out of most of your post, and I sure don't understand how it relates to the topic of this thread. So, no, I didn't (and still don't) feel compelled to answer the rest of your questions.

Maybe we'll get to a few of those other verses... eventually. Mark 7:35 (because I'm interested in taking a closer look what "the string of the tongue" might mean or communicates) maybe Rom.8:26-27. 1Cor.14. But, for now, I'm a bit stuck on how some think or say the serpent spoke to Eve. Via language? Or not? (But if not, why not?) Or, does it just not matter? (The essential importance of it being... they communicated.)

How you derived that from what I said escapes me. What? What (or who) do you suppose "the devil" is or means? Maybe a little better or clearer than you're giving me credit for, Mark. Actually, I think there's a much greater blindness that has afflicted all mankind ever since the fall. Death is only one aspect of it.

No. The question was not what was "other than," but what it actually was. WW has stated, in so many words, that if (such and such), then it had to be in some kind of language. Technically, I'd be inclined to agree with that, if the use of the word "language" allowed for the inclusion of how Eve may have perceived reality. But, the inclusion of any reality beyond the one Sagan could see (and couldn't find a dragon in) is a stumbling block. Or maybe a roadblock. Seems impassable, either way. I've been in no rush to get there. Shoot, we can't even make it past the first one here in Genesis, which gets tossed aside as being irrelevant. (But I don't believe it is.)

Late, maybe. But, I didn't just "nuh-un" it. Maybe there's a post that you (or somebody else) made somewhere with the concession that glossolalia can or might be an authentic form or means of communication, but if so, I hadn't seen or read it. Neither have I seen or read elsewhere that you (or anyone else here) have clarified what or how anything was "said" between the serpent and Eve. It's been tossed out as being hypothetical or figurative, and subsequently irrelevant to what (or how anything else in the Bible) is or can be said between man and God. IF it is so darn irrelevant here in Genesis how the serpent is "said" to have said anything unto the woman, then why put or suppose how a man "speaketh" unto God is any more necessary or important? (Sagan was an intelligent man, no disagreement there, but he never embraced Christianity or viewed reality from that perspective.)

Okay then, me bad. It was a generalized statement (though, a scripturally based one) that I happen to believe. That doesn't mean that I have the right or liberty to throw it out there in front of you (or anyone else) that perceives it as either an assault or an insult. But, I can assure you that it was not in my thinking that you should take it personally, or that you would see it the way that you do. My apologies.

If you are honest, and look at what I first said, as well as why I said it, I'm a bit taken back that you would think I had any more duty or responsibility to produce any more evidence or recounting of the facts more than I did, or that I was in some illusive and less respectable way running away from validating that it was not some "hypothetical" scenario. I took it as far as seemed to be reasonably prudent or necessary to back up my previous post and the reality that I think exists for it.

You're projecting a presumption upon me that is unnecessary, unwarranted, and also untrue. I agree. But if something is more literally true that we might think or are willing to view it from, then we will be blind to at least part (if not to the key essence) of truth that is written therein.

I'll steer clear of most of your discussion with Steve. However, this statement did catch my attention, as I am probably (at least partly) responsible for trying to clarify the matter, and understand what the exact difference is between spoken communication and language. (And I have yet to better see it.) Not to prove something which I already see as being or know is unproveable, but to show that your "biblically based" position against it may not be as airtight as you have portrayed.

There's a presumption being made, that this was the only means by which Eve could know or perceive what was being communicated. Yet, as indicated in a previous post, I do not believe her perception of reality was the same as ours at that point in time.

or a missing view of the exact relationship or correlation between snake and spirit. (Perhaps that's synonymous with being a "very poorly understood" snake.)

I actually don't expect anyone to believe it, Raf. But yeah, it's the road with a couple of sweeping curves to the northeast coming out of New Knoxville, which I had to go look the name of. It's the Moulton Angle Rd., which changes to Center Rd. at the intersection with Cook. Exact date would have to be looked up to, but that shouldn't be too difficult. Rt. 29 had a 30ft. snowdrift across it in front of Hoge Lumber, but four wheel vehicles (with chains) and Backhoe couldn't much make it to the end of Wierwille Rd. and 29. Maybe somebody is clever enough to figure out if and where power lines existed in the area at the time. (Have at it, if you're so inclined, as I am not.) The point was (and is), that no amount of evidence would suffice. After all, it is written in scripture, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

I disagree, Mark, as I think the event did take place. This presumes that Eve perceived reality in the same way that you perceive it (and/or have portrayed it.)

My understanding and perspective is that the incident actually took place.