WordWolf

"Israel"- Hebrew, "beloved of God." ("Theophilus"- Greek, "beloved of God.") Galatians 4 seems to match your thinking. It contrasts the Law with the Promise, and it contrasts Abraham's children of Hagar (the bondwoman) with Abraham's children of Sarah (children of the promise), and says that the Law is analogous to the children of the bondwoman and corresponds to the nation of Israel, while the Promise is analogous to the children of Sarah, and that's US. Galatians 4: 22ff "22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." =================================== That seems fairly straightforward to me, but it's not a universally-held read of those verses. Here's the same verses, with me commenting along. 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons[Ishmael and Jacob/Israel], the one by a bondmaid[Ishmael, Hagar's son], the other by a freewoman[Jacob/Israel, Sarah's son.]. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman[Ishmael] was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman[Jacob/Israel] was by promise. [Ishmael's existence was entirely due to an attempt to physically accomodate God without taking His promise literal- which would have been miraculous. Jacob/Israel's existence was entirely due to taking God's promise literally, it being a promise of a miracle.] 24 Which things are an allegory[They symbolize something]: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.[/b]["Answering to Jerusalem which now is" at the time of that writing was the literal 12 tribes of the nation of Israel. That corresponds to ISHMAEL, the child of the bondwoman, and they hold Mount Sinai as a huge deal.][/b] 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.[We are the children of promise, the children of The Promise of God- just as Jacob/Israel's existence as a son was entirely due to God's Promise. We correspond to Jacob/Israel, and a heavenly Jerusalem which is not a physical city on this planet.] 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. [God took care of Ishmael and he prospered-but nothing like the child of the promise prospered. Ishmael troubled Israel/Jacob then, and as of this writing, the Jews troubled the Christians. Both won't be dealt with on the same level any more than those were the first time. Jacob/Israel was a "type" of US, and Ishmael was a "type" of the Jews. ======================================= Really, I think that's pretty straightforward. However, I obviously don't speak for everyone.

*checks* I'm pretty sure that whole section will be rewritten. It was lacking citations, and neither the Wikipedia entry on Colu nor on Brainy show anything of that kind. I think both we and the writers had the appearance changes as a holographic device in use. Seriously, if he could shapechange, there would have been an actual instance of it, even a minor one. Someone jumped to the conclusion that he's completely artificial, AND his body is totally malleable, AND that his consciousness can just jump into machines and stuff. Again, we saw no evidence of that. And, frankly, he would be able to fly the entire spaceship if he could do it cybernetically.

Jamie Lee Curtis True Lies Arnold Schwarzenegger

You're referring to when MM turned into "Fernus." I had the conclusion of that. Supposedly, Plastic Man was able to keep up with him due to his shapechanging ability and because Martians wer unable to read his non-organic mind. This is especially interesting in light of what happened with that Hyperclan business, when the White Martians tried to invade Earth. Green Lantern (Kyle Rayner) was in combat with himself. Plastic Man saw both, but couldn't figure out which was the original. One GL: "Ok. O'Brian...." Plastic-Man said that only the real GL would know his name, and went to assist that GL. Same GL: "Or a telepath." *cuts Plastic-Man in half with Martian-vision* Oops. If I were begged to try to answer that one, I'd say that Fernus couldn't access Jonn's full telepathy. *checks the TV show wiki* MM sure HAS phased through stuff, at least twice (once against Metallo's kryptonite heart, once in Season 1, Episode 7 somewhere, when Supergirl's powers were taking a weekend off or something.) *keeps reading* Did I miss a lot about Brainiac 5? Is he supposed to be a full-blown shapechanger that can elongate, reshape his limbs, and so on? " Being a Coluan, Querl is able to manipulate his limbs to stretch and elongate to almost no limit and turn his limbs into blades that can pierce into Martians. He is able to absorb bullets harmlessly into his body if shot. " Were all born Coluans shown to have these abilities? I thought he was using a device to hide his appearance, not that he was shapechanging. And iy may be interesting to see Querl learn how to MacGuyver the 21st century tech into something he can use, since he's used to the 31st century.

Lumly was "the M.A.N.T.I.S."? Ok, I can hear it in his voice now, maybe. I think Brainy and Winn are trading places. Brainy sure LOOKED like he was settling in. Besides, Supergirl and the DEO both need a techie for their teams. It was said once that Superman never wanted to fight the Martian Manhunter. Near Kryptonian power levels, plus the shangechanging, plus the telepathy, plus he can phase through solid objects. This version doesn't seem to turn intangible.

Carrie Fisher the Blues Brothers Frank Oz

SPOILERS! With the World Cup skipping a day, I caught the Supergirl season finale. My thoughts, briefly... I didn't see the Winn connection sooner, and with Brainy in the room, perhaps I should have. M'yrrn, sadly, had to go, and he went aptly. J'onn COULD get his own show, but I doubt they'll do it. Too bad, I'd like it better than Supergirl. It shouldn't surprise too much that they found reasons for the white guys to leave, but seeing J'onn go is/ may be a surprise. (J'onn could easily remain a regular character.) I was SO glad to get the one line about Superman actually doing something during this emergency. (I don't ask much, I just ask for SOMETHING if he's not in the middle of something like this.) Wally is leaving BOTH? That's a shame. I think the writers have painted Jimmy Olsen into a corner. As for Lena, that was supposed to surprise someone, but she has a lousy poker-face and telegraphed the ending for the audience with that look. I AM curious about the end of the end of the episode ("48 hours earlier.") I imagine the DEO is going to have some growing pains. "We're getting rid of the actual weapons now, in the hopes we will have some high-tech designed by Winn to replace them soon." "Sorry to see some of you choose to leave as a result." "Winn is leaving instead. I'd worry about what to do with no weapons and no tech, but that's the headache of the new boss. Ciao!" Oh, and this "you can have everything without sacrificing anything" thing. I hope that gets discredited next season. BTW, I hope those DEO people leaving all took LEAVES OF ABSENCE rather than just resigning. That would make it easier to bring a character back. Or at least give J'onn a badge to flash if it's useful (it is better than having to solve problems with violence, after all...) The surprise at the end of "Flash" wasn't much of a surprise, but glad it's been said so we can actually move on. The thing I'm hoping to follow up on is the symbolic language. Barry came back from the Speed Force with it, and that rhyming. Harry went into that rhyming briefly. That chick uses that language. I'm hoping someone ties all that together eventually. Here's to me finishing Krypton and Arrow after the World Cup.

*checks* Glenn Yarbrough was a folk singer. Among his portfolio is the songs in the Rankin-Bass animated movie, "the Hobbit" (like "the Road Goes Ever On" and he did some songs for their animated "Return of the King." ( You may recall the troubadour at the beginning. "Frodo of the nine fingers....and the ring of doom!") For me, that's the best-known stuff he's done. And the stuff he's done I've heard most recently.

Of course twi censors other Christian sources- especially Christian history. vpw wouldn't have known church history if it bit him in the calf. He never studied it- he studied "homiletics", or "how to give a sermon." (Really, that was his grad school track? How to give a sermon? That needs an entire track?) So, since he didn't know church history, we were discouraged from learning it. vpw forbid we learned more than he did on a subject! We know he was clueless because when he made up the so-called "1942 promise", he claimed he would be taught "the Word like it hadn't been known since the 1st Century" while lacking an understanding of what they DID know in the 1st century. (The claim of the promise collapses under scrutiny because it's so error-ridden, which is one reason vpw kept it under wraps for the most part. Frankly, I think he was amazed it went as far as it did without everyone calling him on enormous bs.) Anyway, twi actively discouraged learning church history. Like all "cults", it also discouraged searching for knowledge outside its own influence. That some people did so anyway was in spite of twi trying to discourage it, not because it was encouraged.

"Hey I just figured out why such the cognitive dissonance over organizing posts in this thread and Doctrinal. The title of this thread is "Wierwille the Indoctrinator" - indoctrinator has "doctrine" as its root word. How is it not going to come up? This thread by nature has elements of TWI and Doctrine in it. Two main words in the title are equally separated down each forum division." And yet, discussions of "indoctrination" can-and do- happen independent of "DOCTRINE." I read an entire book on the subject of indoctrination once ("Factors Used to Increase the Susceptibility of Individuals to Forceful Indoctrination"), and the APA didn't touch on "doctrine" at all. It's like saying that we can't "disagree" (draw different conclusions) without being "disagreeable" (grouchy and ill-tempered) because "disagree" and "disagreeable" have the same root word.

I'm not going to get into arguments, but I'll highlight the disagreement. I don't think anyone here would just dismiss a "Gospel" of Mary the mother of Jesus. The question is whether or not something CALLED that IS that. I mean, I could write "the adolescent gospel of Thaddeus- the adventures of Jesus when he was a teen". Then someone could come along and say "Thaddeus was one of Jesus' 12 Apostles! This should be taken as seriously as Matthew!" Yet I don't think anyone thinks that person would be CORRECT to say so, So, where we disagree on such books is in whatever standard we use to determine whether it is canon, or just an old book written by someone who came along centuries later. And THAT would be a whole discussion on its own, in Doctrinal. But that's where the disagreement lies. Carry on, everyone.

Wilfred Brimley Coccoon Don Ameche

Weird All Yankovic Spy Hard Leslie Nielsen

If it's 50 years old, it's before my time. The Mrs and I are fans of different "retro" things, so we sometimes sound older than we are.

Haven't seen it yet. Might be the actor isn't Harrison Ford (but who is, really?) Might be it contradicts the novels. Might be popular to bash. Hard to say from here. I'm just not getting my hopes up. For me, the heyday of SW/ST has passed, and I can't be too disappointed in current results because they're not the same franchises- at least not in my head.

Did you say the Green Arrow has a television show now? Wasn't he just on "Smallville?"

"Star Wars- Episode IV-A New Hope." I don't recognize the first 2 actors. Peter Cushing played Grand Moff Tarkin (and, since he wasn't shot full-body, wore slippers with his Imperial Moff uniform.) Anthony Daniels was See-Threepio, Kenny Baker was Artoo-Detoo, and Peter Mayhew was Chewbacca. As PM points out, he may not have gotten a medal at the end, but he did have the last line. (Book versions said he got a medal later because Princess Leia wasn't his height.) The MTV Awards used to have a Lifetime Achievement Award of dubious seriousness. One year, it was awarded to Chewbacca the Wookiee. AFAIK, it was PM who came out, in costume. And Carrie Fisher came out and put a medal around his neck. How did PM get the job? He and David Prowse showed up. When they both stood up, they were both hired, and asked which wanted to play a hero, and which wanted to play a villain. Their answers are how we got the casting for Darth Vader and Chewbacca.

Overboard Kurt Russell Tango & Cash (Didn't we see GH and PB in this page already?)

I really should have remembered to stay off the thread. I won't finish the last episode or so, probably, until after the World Cup.

I may be imagining I've heard this ONCE, quite some time ago. It's not sparking a memory of a tune or anything.

I quite openly advise people NOT to rely on the Authorized Version/King James Version, and specify that only Shakespeare fans and fans of Elizabethan English should even try to use it. My current usages of it remain confined to quoting it at the GSC because everyone here's familiar with it, and using it to find verses that I look up in other versions (since I'm familiar with it.) For personal use, I use the NASB. I first heard of it in the context of a splinter group (yes, Raf, you mentioned it first), and its usage of the italics for the same reasons as the AV/KJV (it was Authorized by King James, in case anyone doesn't know) . After I read Neil Lightfoot's "How We Got the Bible", I switched over to the New American Standard Bible (NASB), despite its refusal to be titled a "version" which it, of course, is. In the course of explaining what's wonderful about the NIV (in his opinion), NL made points in passing about the NASB that filled my list of what I wanted in a version. That is, the italics, clear communication, and CONSISTENCY IN TRANSLATION (readers are more likely to find Greek Word A is always translated English Word H, for example, and not English Word H twice, English Word Q four times, and so on. So, despite being a fan of Shakespeare, I recommend the NASB around, and read it myself. With access to things like E-sword and online Bibles, it's easy to compare the versions side-by-side whenever you want. The internet has made that a LOT easier.

If you're going to get a few bills under the table, or a few perks where you aren't caught not paying tax..... ...it's smart to have a job on the books. Then the IRS thinks that's your sole source of income. They won't, say, think to come around to your home and wonder why "the big television we use to display teachings" that "the ministry" owns is on the wall of YOUR living room, etc.... If you have no listed job, the IRS gets suspicious.

The smart money says they won't. Oh, there will be some cosmetic differences for about 2-3 years as things are worked out, then the doctrine will be locked into place, the practics locked into place, and you have another twi with a different name and different people doing the exploiting. I'm curious how long it will be before the first higher-up from RnR leaves to do his own personal thing, claiming the others don't listen. Past experience with twi splinters suggest it won't be much longer....

I don't know which would be a bigger trainwreck- that they don't expand their learning, or that they do. If they don't expand, they're just fossilized leftovers from twi. But when we see twi splinters "expand", we get mess-ups like endorsing Momentus and the "personal prophecy" thing. And they can't be fixed because they can't accept they'd mess up that badly- and worse, that people like us saw it coming a mile away, can identify the problem at a moment's glance, and begin outlining solutions.

chockfull: "Sure - oikonomia and usages sound like a reasonable start. I am not 100% convinced that doing "word studies" on Greek words is going to present a great deal of enlightenment regarding "the ages" or "administrations of time" types of views. The LXX isn't as precise as the Hebrew OT. And I'm going to obviate one of my other problems. I reject a fundamentalist viewpoint of being able to do mathematical type proofs with scriptures." I'm hoping to go over what I find, and make the clearest case for a consistent answer I can find, "showing all my work." My thinking is that it should be internally consistent and stand on its own merits. If that doesn't work, then hopedully I didn't waste too much of your time. If that does work, I'm hoping that will be enough for you to agree at least to that. That's really all I can ask, if I'm presenting a rationale. chockfull: " Where are you at on this?" I'm where I was before digging into the material again. (So, my opinion may change in the next few days.) At present, I think that the sensible rendering of "oikonomia" is "stewardship", period. Furthermore, I think the division of things into "covenants" is more consistent with what we see than "dispensations/administrations", whether ot nor rhe word "dispensations" even appears in Scripture. Again, I reserve the right to change opinions once all the evidence is laid out.