TLC

And so it was around HQ. The rescue trip (by snow machine) was to Don & Wanda W's house (Don was not there.) The event (and incident) were known by quite a few at the time, but some of the details weren't common knowledge.

Which is precisely why I said this: "And maybe the problem with anything that actually is evidence, is that it can't be interpreted or explained by 'normal' means or measurement."

I don't really disagree with your point. However, there has been a very concerted effort by a number of people here at GSC to intellectually erase or eradicate any value in it.

I don't see that your question matters to the issue at hand. It's a biblical record illustrating some sort of communication between two parties, one being Eve. The question is whether it was done via a language, as it is written that something was "said." Furthermore, it's relevant to the topic as it involves a prior biblical usage of terms relating to speech and/or language (and might therefore be involved in setting precedents.)

Thank you. Did or didn't the serpent use a language to speak to Eve?

So... let's see if I have this right. You acknowledge and agree that animals can and do communicate. However not in languages. Therefore, assemby, fortran, basic, java... are all also not a language. Wherefore, glossolalia, which is spoken, may indeed be an authentic form or means of communication, but it is not a language, because not all spoken communications are a language. But when it is written "the serpent said to Eve," what language do you suppose it must have been? Or, was it? After all, animals can't and don't communicate with a language, right? Or was this some kind of crazy exception? Because we certainly do have the translation of what was said, however it was said. So was it in or with a language, or not? Maybe this is too much, too quickly. So before taking this any further or deeper, maybe we'd better stop and see where some are at with this one: True or false. Glossolalia can or might be an authentic form of communication.

It wasn't hypothetical. It happened. January of '78.

And maybe the problem with anything that actually is evidence, is that it can't be interpreted or explained by "normal" means or measurement. For example: You can't see the road because of blizzard conditions, so you end up following the road by following the telephone poles and the wires between them. It's slow going, but you eventually get to where you're going safely. You return home a few days later (when the weather and the roads have cleared) by the same route. Except that you realize there are NO poles nor any telephone wires of any kind along the way. They were never there.

What's that? Fancy word for debris (aka, garbage)? LOL. The vocab is over my head. I even went to google translate (figuring it must be a foreign one) and couldn't get it.

That may be true (taken in the right way or context.) However, it may be more sure (also, if understood in the right way or context.) If God works in our heart to "bring to remembrance" a particular verse or passage of scripture, how is it then thought or viewed that He communicated with us? Which means what, exactly? So in other words, a "linguistic artifact" is a thought? Pretty fancy name. Sorta sounds like calling the garbage man a "sanitation engineer." Well, however you got there, I'm inclined to agree with that.

Well said. Thank you. It makes no sense whatsoever to live in isolation or in ignorance to what is happening around us. (And the communal situation at HQ was no small issue.) Right on both points.

Okay, Raf. I wasn't sure where best to post it, so I put it over here:

Well, I didn't realize that the posting numbers can (and do) change in a thread. (consequently, the post numbers referred to above are all wrong... or, at least they were a few minutes ago.) And after reading a couple of places, I'm still not sure where is a better place to post this, so... I guess it'll go here. It's odd to me, how the mind and heart work at times. (Or, maybe it's just me.) But, still floating around in the back of my mind is the befuddlement of why many here (at least, it seems like the opinion of many, voiced by a few) have put so much emphasis on SIT needing to be an identified as a bona fide language for it to be the same thing that is referred to in the scriptures. What is the actual point or purpose of it? (I'm referring to speaking in tongues.) Isn't the most basic essence of it simply "to communicate"? When the serpent spoke to the woman (in Gen.3), must we know the language... or that it was via "a language" that could be identified by some supposedly linguistic expert? How long did it take these supposed language experts to figure out that humpback whales communicate with each other through some sort of verbalization? Or how a dolphin speaks to another dolphin miles away? Or a bird to another bird? Or any number of other animals to each other? What "expert" figured all these things out, that it puts them in such a position of trust that if they say or declare something is an authentic "language," the only believable or acceptable form of communication, so that now whatever vocalization is coming out of someone's mouth "must be" reckoned as something supernatural? Why put so much trust or confidence in them to make that declaration or determination? I don't get it.

I doubt that's ever anyone's intent. Besides, we each either do or don't waste our own time. But if we think someone else is doing it for us, maybe we need to take a little more control over our self. Okay, I didn't realize it was just one page. Doesn't make sense to me, so I sent a PM to you with an email address to send the book. Thanks.

I'll add one thing more to this. I don't think anybody has ever had it (i.e., Christianity) exactly right since the apostle Paul. Maybe in certain respects he wasn't perfect either. But in doctrine? Of necessity, that man had it goin' on. Even Peter eventually admitted that. And it seems rather likely that no man will ever again attain the magnitude of understanding that Paul did. Which is probably a good thing, human nature being what it is and the strong tendency to follow after and brown nose or cling to the charismatic shadow of some other man. Instead, pockets of truth seems to be found in bits and pieces across the board, with no one person having it all, and no power or force so great that it is able to prevent more and more of it from surfacing.

Unless I'm mistaken, reformation theology and expansion theology refer to one and the same thing. (Some calling it one, some calling it the other.) I think it might also be called unity theology. There's something else called replacement theology that I avoided using, as that term seems to be more egregious to some, who claim it's merely straw to be blown down. But, most people follow after one form or another of one of these theologies, whether they either know it or admit it. Yeah, maybe I lost sight of primary goal of the thread, to punk wierwille. Where was I, thinkin' more 'bout what sound doctrine is or might or should be? But then, how do you honestly assess or measure how much twi's teachings and doctrine skewed the very essence of Christianity, if the very essence of Christianity is never set forth right in the first place?

I'll look at that when time allows. I have yet to find much of any reason for "the Christ Administration" or where it came from, other than wanting to number "the Grace Administration" as the fifth. Calling it the first implies that there are more to follow after it, which I see no reason for in either the first Eden (before the time of Adam), or the next. Furthermore, I don't see where a 3rd earth is ever spoken of in scripture, being that there is yet to be a second. You not the first or only one to think that. And doesn't Schoenheit refer to it that way? (it so happens, I agree with the separation, though not on what you've called it, and perhaps not for the same reasons.) If you haven't heard it before, rainbows are not restricted to or comprised of only seven colors. Numerology can get a bit "out there" if you let it, and blind you to the simplicity of the message. (kinda what seems to happen with all the Greek research many times...) I may do that after a gander at what was uploaded already. (which won't be before the weekend) But thank you for the offer.

It wasn't you alone that I viewed as dissing Paul, it was the entire first post (which seemed to stem from your post elsewhere) and the direction the thread appeared to be headed towards. While I don't believe that VP (or Bullinger, for that matter) had it right, I also don't believe that reformation or expansion theology (which Arthur Pink appear to fit with) has it right.

Your dissing of the apostle Paul, and the virulency of your post.

Okay, perhaps you wouldn't mind laying out the 8 separations (makes no difference at this point exactly what you want to call them, dispensations will work just fine.) Here's Bullinger's: 1. The Edenic state of innocence. End—the expulsion from Eden. 2. The period "without law" (the times of ignorance, Acts 17:30). End—The Flood, and the judgment on Babel. 3. The era under law. End—The rejection of Israel. 4. The period of grace. End—The "day of the Lord". 5. The epoch of judgment. End—The destruction of Antichrist. 6. The millennial age. End—The destruction of Satan, and the judgment of the great white throne. 7. The eternal state of glory. No End. TWI's is different, adding in "the Christ Administration" and then combining the judgement and millennial age. What's your take?

Many here are not unfamiliar with most of Bullinger's work in this area. So, I don't see or sense anything that seems new or different. Perhaps you'll get to it in your next post.

Okay, I'll bite. So what is your basic premise, or where might you have discussed it here?

I'm mostly inclined to agree with this, but not for the same reasons or from the same perspective. Even back then, it appeared saying or hearing that it was Christ in you was often far removed from actually believing that it is Christ in you. It was long after graduating the corps when the reality of Christ's presence took on much more significant meaning. (But for quite different reasons that it appears it might have been for you.) Yup. The living Christ, as I see it. It's not what I recall (at least, it's not how I saw it.) Maybe it's somewhat a matter of semantics. But, I'm also thinking of 1Cor.11:1. Paul was Paul. And I don't believe there will ever be anyone that honestly can (or should ever be) compared to him. Following him is one thing. But putting yourself in place of him (or allowing or encouraging anyone else to put you in that place) is quite another. And anybody that thinks they can or should be... well then, there's a problem brewing. Perhaps if we really understood and followed more of what Paul (who clearly knew and had a personal relationship with the ascended Christ) taught, rather than having been so gung ho and committed to building a ministry structuring itself akin to the church of James and the apostles that were in Jerusalem, there wouldn't have been anything to become so distracted with or that would "fall apart."

That might fit better if I hadn't just pointed out that it (i.e., for private prayer) actually hasn't changed much in over 40 years.

I didn't plan on commenting on this, but, given Raf's willingness to allow some of the discussion to continue here, perhaps I will (to see what his take is on it.) From my perspective, the tongue used in my private prayer life seems more or less unchanged from what it was initially (40 some years ago.) Oddly enough, it always seemed to be something different in what we commonly referred to as a "believer's meeting." Why it changed or changes, I don't know and I don't recall being aware of any effort to intentionally change it... which might raise the question of how or why it's done, if it's not supernatural. Maybe there is one, but I can't say that I've heard of much of a sensible reason or explanation for it. Perhaps Raf knows of one (but then, he probably doesn't care if there isn't.)