TLC

You're right, I shouldn't have stopped there. No one has cornered the market on either of them. Well, I don't see truth as necessarily (or exclusively) dependent upon someone's objective verification of it. As for what "reality" is and/or isn't, well, there is this little matter of how completely reality is (or can be) detected with our senses. Which, probably doesn't make any sense whatsoever if your view is that anything and everything is (or can be) detected with our senses. Granted. But sometimes there are premises that are overlooked or missed. (Which, if missed, can fail to expose the fragility of a logical argument.) So, in short, I question whether all the premises supporting that statement are clearly revealed. That's mostly conjecture. But anyway, I'll agree that some of the "apparent contradictions" have been gummed-up by other men's rationalizations. How thoughtful of me you are. Perhaps some of my "knee-jerk defensive" responses won't appear to be so knee-jerk or defensive some day. Or, maybe not. I don't know. That chore (if that's what it is) will all be over someday. (And its maybe not all that far away.)

Ah, the original sin, taught rather haphazardly at that. I doubt I'll be much troubled with sorrow in bringing forth children, but I suppose that's not what you meant. As far as what else transpired, we were all enslaved to our senses, the end of which is death. Knowing or seeing anything beyond that is another matter, not appropriate for this thread.

I'm wondering that myself. Given the meanness and viciousness that's been on display here (in this thread), it must have been a brain fart on my part. I didn't realize that wolf packs hunt here. So what. Call out the dogs and throw me out if you want. Obviously I don't know anything that you have any need or use for.

You'll have to entertain(?) me with what was in session#7, as I don't remember. I've moved on from fair number of things that were taught in PFAL, but evidently you haven't figured that out yet. (fair number = enough that I don't care to recount or try to remember them all at this point in time.) There seems to be an inherent prejudice in this forum that presumes anybody not crawling in here with an arm and a leg missing must be a TWI supporter. Maybe that's because it's happened so much that it seems normal to y'all. But, it seems rather strange to me. (edited "the" to "that")

Interesting thought. I'm not aware of any covenant associated with Paul, so I don't see that as being the best fit, but he does acknowledge a certain stewardship. The difficulty with "stewardship" for me is how much reliance it seems to put on what man does rather than on what God does. But, maybe it can be seen as God opening or closing certain doors (or instructions) based upon where man is at, at such and such point in time. (I'd need to put more time and thought in it.) It initially might seem to make a stronger case for the called out (i.e., the church) of this era having started with Paul, rather than on the day of Penetcost in Acts 2.

I've found this site useful at times: http://www.biblestudytools.com/compare-translations/ For whatever it's worth, it seems to me that the Douay-Rhiems version makes the most sense of this verse. (Of course, the Latin Vulgate carries some other baggage along.) Weymouth and Wycliffe's version also seem to allude to a similar meaning, but it's harder to pick up on.

Yeah, I'm not without my share of faults. I suppose being a wuss isn't one of them. GSC is a real minefield. Damned if you do, damned if you don't say anything in "such and such" a manner.

Why take it so personal? Do you think I knew (or even cared) whether or not you were a "Rev"? The "accusation" as you call it, was merely a generalized observation. Why you took it as being (or intentioned) as something more than that, I don't know.

There are plenty of Dr.'s in the world that don't use it or go by it in their social circles. So, even if legit, one need not demand usage of it. I am neither a defender, an endorser, or a viscous critic of VPW. There's plenty enough others around that fit that bill, and at this point, I just don't think my opinion will add or subtract anything to what's already known and been said about him here. (And I'm well aware of most of it. Have been for some time now.)

Your post seems evidence enough of what "good" the Rev. title appears to have done for you. So, my previous "generalization" stands.

No, not always. But if or when something is (or was) observed repeatedly, it seems fair to make a generalized statement about it. Of course there can be, and undoubted are, exceptions. Same for the Corps training. It didn't automatically ruin everyone that graduated or necessarily make them more puffed up. But puffed up so many became, that a generalization of the effect of the program is not entirely unreasonable, is it? The knife cuts both ways. And no, I know little to nothing about you, except for some of the snide remarks towards me that you seem to be rather adept on this thread. Were you that way before your title? Do tell. (edited only slightly, for better clarity) What, did you change your mind about what you just said? Back to the snide remarks, is it?

The "Rev." label seemed to change people, but not for the better. (Corps program probably wasn't much different.) Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. Amazing how that works, eh?

Probably one of the sensible things (to me, anyways) I read yet on this thread. Personally, I think when viewed from a distance (and looking back over the last 6000 or so years) there are fairly clear indications that certain period of times had a different set of instructions that were given to men by God. (Some much more verbose, obviously.) So, I suppose that most here would peg me as a dispensationalist. Which is undoubtedly true, but not after the manner of either Bullinger, VPW, or anyone else that you might care to mention, including Schoenheit. (Unless you're familiar with Les Feldick's, as his view on this is the best I've come across. I know of no one else that matches his teachings on this, and I've looked at more than a few.)

I don't see that anyone here has cornered the market on that yet. He wasn't the originator of that, as you should (and ought) to know. That's hogwash. I see no such implication. Take, for instance, the parables that Jesus Christ spoke in. Do you suppose that they had a single meaning which was accessible to everybody? Separating truth from error is a life long task for all of us. Where and how any of us may have started on that journey, or how focused upon it any of us have remained, varies greatly, and in many ways we live in difficult times of sensory overload. (very close to the end time, I dare say.) My personal decision to accept the inerrancy and the authority of scripture didn't began with, nor did it end with, VPW.

Well, if you read exactly what I wrote (in post #194), I didn't call it "accepting a premise." I said that it (referring to choices, or conclusions, however you want to say it) "involved accepting a premise", which I think is still accurate. In post #200, where "reasons" were being discussed, points directly to "accepting a premise" as the reason why inerrancy is plausible. Had you not put quotes as you did around "accepting a premise," perhaps I could think that you weren't referring back to either of these two posts and distorting what was said by lifting said phrase entirely out of the context it was used within, and alluding to a less intelligent (and less credible) use of it. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's what the intent of your post looks like from my point of view. (Just sayin' what it looks like. But please feel free to explain otherwise, and/or correct me if I'm wrong - it won't be the first nor the last time that I am.)

Sure, lot's of reasons to see it (which was canonized) as having errors, and maybe only one to think of it (meaning the original, of course) as inerrant. It's accepting a premise, no matter how it's viewed.

maybe we coulda found a place for 'em in the way tree...

Has how God communicates with people changed from any time in the past? How many camps do you suppose this might be split into? It's God's only way of communicating with people today. It's the only authoritative way that God can communicate. It's the primary way, out of other ways (But hasn't always been?) It's superior, more reliable, or more effective than any other way. It's more explainable or unmistakeable than any other way. It's inferior to another way. (which is?) It's inferior to nearly any other way. (because all roads lead to Chicago?) It's _________ (fill in the bank.) Appears there may be a number of ways to thread the needle, but what might you choose as the best or "correct" answer? If it's thought to contain errors, there would seem to be some inherent difficulty with any of the first four. (Which begs the question, is any one way thought to be better or more reliable than any other way?)

Okay, I better see what you intended to communicate. But what appears to elevate "scripture" to a higher level of gravitas than a mere "letter" that was sent to them is its inclusion of those that are unlearned (unlearned about what, exactly, if it's not the Torah, or other spiritually inspired writings?), wrestling them unto their own destruction. What wrangling with other "writings" carries with it such devastating consequences if not understood? That's your choice, of course, but it plainly involves accepting the premise that said consensus is more authoritative that the actual words of the writer himself.

Huhn? Why think it is magical or ethereal? I think of it as what was written down. Unlike "the word of God," which I consider as being spiritual. In other words, the word of God (which is not tangible) can be spoken or written, both of which are tangible. In this context, scripture refers to the written portion, as opposed to that which might be spoken. How can you be so certain of that, without accepting a premise that simply attributes more credibility to some other authority? Both epistles declare the writer to be an apostle of Jesus Christ. Evidently you suppose that this is an error (i.e., a lie), or that there were other apostles of Jesus Christ named Peter, or Simon Peter. (I'm not sure which, or if you might have something else in mind.) I see no logical reason not to think that he is equating it with the Torah (which was inspired.) Perhaps I'm missing something that you're trying to say, as I took (correct me if I'm wrong) your "modern sense" phrase to mean, any and everything that is written by anybody, past, present, or future.

The example of those around us always seems to have more effect than whatever might be read or heard. Talk is cheap, so to speak. Aside from what was just discussed? Col.2:18-19 offers a rather prominent reason that might interest you. Pride and humility gets all twisted around (backassward) when there's little or no personal relationship with the ascended Christ. The Way Tree? Leaf connected to the twig, connected to the branch, connected to the limb, connected to the root? Where's the connection to the head in that?

I'll agree that there were a lot of crummy practiced within TWI, some number of which stemmed from what was taught in PFAL and more that stemmed from the example set by leadership in the ministry, that we all, to some degree or another, developed similar bad habits. However, it might foster a little too much of the "I was victim" mentality to simply say that it was TWI/PFAL that made us victims. I'm not saying that no one was victimized (it happened), or that we all, to some degree might feel that way. But if part of healing and/or changing those bad habits (however you want to think of it) entails accepting a certain amount of personal responsibility for it, then I think there's a little caution merited in what we see as the reason for any bad habits that we might still have. And it's my opinion that one of the worst is this "I have more truth than you" or "he's more spiritual than you" hierarchy that was cast," which many (including many here) are still deeply ensnared within.

Then it seems the next logical question would be to ask whether they should be included when it is written that "all scripture" is given by inspiration of God. If the writer has elsewhere (Rom.15:4) distinguished things that were written "aforetime," should he not also have written "All scripture written aforetime" to Timothy if that is all that was meant? At the least, it should include all of Paul's epistles, considering that this was the last of what was written by Paul.

Life is in the blood, according to Leviticus. I don't know that science has yet discovered exactly what it is in the blood, but it won't be a surprise if they do some day. This site proposes life begins when there is blood in the fetus: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when3.htm Interesting possibility, it seems.

Does that mean that you think 2Pet.3:16 implicitly categorizes Paul's epistles as scripture? If not, why the exclusion, given they were already written by the time Peter wrote this?