Oakspear

Just because a specific English word is not used in an English translation of the bible doesn't mean that the concept did not exist in biblical times. Non-surgical methods of abortion have been known since early times. The bible would be a much bigger book than it is already if every single specific situation had to be covered in "legal" detail. I believe that to participate in a discussion like this, one has to at least operate under the assumption that the bible is divinely inspired and contains everything that pertains to life and godliness, otherwise we could have a thread that is titled "What do you think about abortion?"

One way to look at these stories is to work backward. At the time that these books were written, the alleged descendents of the rival siblings in question were whole nations who were rivals on the national or tribal level. Thus the problems with Edom and Ishmael were explained in terms of the founders of thse nations being brothers to two key figures in Hebrew history. Moab and Ammon were described as descended from the illicit relationship the cousin of Issac and his daughters.

I believe that this is the "comment":

Wordwolf remarked on defending Wierwille's position, not the man himself. Galen says he stands on the idea that to be a "living soul" one must breath air, which is Wierwille's position. Wordwolf: It is frustrating, isn't it, to try to get a discussion going when some just want to spout platitudes? The purpose of the thread was to find out what God said about abortion; if one believes that the bible, as originally revealed is the inerrant Word of God, and that bible also contains "all that pertains to life and godliness", then surely one could determine what God thought about abortion. Wierwille made some statements about abortion that, whatever his reasons, don't hold up to scrutiny.

I for one don't consider the bible to be a monolithic expression of the will of a god, but as Dan suggested, the expression of various movements within early Christianity

Speaking in tongues as a 5 senses "proof"? Subjectively, from the inside, I can see it, assuming that one could distinguish among inspiration from God and the several possible counterfeits. Objectively, from the outside, tongues is not proof of anything. How could you know if what someone else was speaking was the biblical phenomenon of speaking in tongues, a devilish counterfeit, senseless babbling or someone actually speaking a foreign language? You could eliminate a few of the possibilities if you knew the person really well, but how could you distinguish between a tongue of angels and random sounds? This may be nit picking Tom, but I would define speaking in tongues more broadly, including any speaking of a real or apparent language that the speaker doesn't know. This would encompass non-Christian tongues as well as Christian.I would go further and define tongues within the Christian biblical context as having the atrributes and benefits that you mention. I guess the reason I'm picking the nits here is that speaking in tongues does exist outside Christianity; narrowing the definition to exclude anything non-Christian does not eliminate the real existance of the phenomena outside of "church".

I was really bad at memorizing verses, and generally forgot them immediately after having learned them :(

He taught that in the foundational class, but contradicted himself in the advanced class, in fact, he tells us of a time when he himself counterfeited tongues: when he was in Tulsa and "quoted John 1:1-2 and Genesis 1:1" in Greek and Hebrew respectively.

It seems that the biblical position, as WW so ably demonstrated, is that a baby in the womb, from at least 6 months onward is considered by God to be "a person". What about the whole "Adam breathed in the breath of life and became a living soul" position? Keep in mind that Adam was not born, was never a fetus, so his first moment of personhood was when God breathed life into him. Also note that it says that God breathed into him "the breath of life". Is that different than just sucking in air? Is it literal or figurative? Did God literally blow air in his lungs? Or did God imbue Adam with life, figuratively called "breathing into him the breath of life"? It also seems like we never fully explored the whole issue of different punishments for a woman "losing her fruit" and the killing of a free man. The killing of a slave does not appear to rate capital puinshment either.

Along the lines of the explosion of ex-wayfers on the message boards: much of the literature that was out in the 70's and 80's originated with ministers who had doctrinal beefs with TWI, or circulated what seemed like extreme exaggerations, e.g. the weapons training that was a hunter safety course, or the Way Corps eating out of trash cans. One of the first things that I noticed on Waydale was that many of the stories were very similar to my own experiences. Things that I had chalked up to abberations, or "rogue Way Corps" were part of the nationwide pattern.

Some moron had a gun in his pants and accidently shot himself as he scratched himself http://www.lincolnjournalstar.com/articles...35745606396.txt “It was obvious from looking at (the man’s) pants that the gunshot occurred from inside the pants,” The witness told officers that a handgun the victim had inside his pants accidentally fired when he was scratching himself.

There was a time when I was still "in" where i didn't beleieve anything negative about TWI. There were plenty of pamphlets around in the 70's. Even during the early days of the internet, it was matter of credibility: I believed my "leadership" more than the anonymous words on the computer screen. It was the message boards like Waydale & Grease Spot that made a difference to me; not only could you read the stories, but you could interact with the storytellers, look for inconsistancies, question, debate. That was a big part of the diffeence for me.

You got it Tom; we are saying pretty much the same thing.My “vague” comment was directed at another poster who was suggesting that The 12 were really speaking Aramaic when they were speaking in tongues The multitude understood the Aramaic as their own native tongues, actually “hearing” it as Parthian, etc Peter was still speaking in tongues later in the same chapter during the section that we often refer to as his “first sermon”. Fascinating idea, but I wasn’t seeing how it was backed up by what was written. And by the way, you're making some good points, like this one:

Sorry, "vague" sounds harsher than I meant to, it wasn't intended as a judgement about the actual words; perhaps "unspecified" wonderful works of God as opposed to the specifically recorded words of Peter later in the chapter. :)

Sharp logic as usual Wolf

Actually I brought it up because I will not take anything as truth because Wierwille said it, not because of a position one way or another on abortion. For anyone who still has a good lexicon that lists the parts of speech for all words used in the NT: is johniam correct, is hagios is this case the neuter gender? What gender is used in other instances? Is the use of gender significant in this case? The actual form of hagios in this verse is hagion, and it is modifying the word gennōmenon, translated as "which shall be born". Earlier in the verse, "holy" is in the same form, hagion when modifying pneuma, spirit.

Indeed Garth, indeed. We used to have a local bar that seemed to be on the tour list of every out-of-the-spotlight rock band. Many of the them could still rock, but just weren't filling the arenas any more.

According to the blue letter bible concordance, the phrase "that holy thing" is the single Greek word hagios - "thing" was added by the translators, and therefore has no authority.

We have a local bar here in Lincoln that does an open mike night every Monday. I stopped in tonight since my lovely bride was out of town. In addition to the usual suspects, the band 3 Dog Night stopped by and jammed with some of the locals. They were playing at the Nebraska State Fair and were looking for something to do after the show. What a hoot!

Come on guys, you know Lifted was referring to modern home fellowships; after all big ol' church buildings have been the norm for at least 1600 years, probably more, and Lifted Up assuredly knew about the Book of Acts <_< TWI certainly promoted their home fellowships as part and parcel of the "Word that hadn't been taught since the first century".

Usually there was some Ohio Corps living at the Kipp farm. As recently as the late 90's the Area Coordinator for the Area around New Knoxville (Miami Valley Branch?) and his family lived there.

No. I think what Acts is trying to communicate is that the Galileans were speaking languages that they didn't understand, but that the hearers did. Pretty much the common view of this section. Okay...I'm not arguing that point I agree with you there. It doesn't specifically state that everybody understood the language that Peter was speaking, but it's a reasonable and logical assumption that people coming to Jersusalem would have at least a working knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic or maybe Greek. A case can be made for amy of those 3 languages. They make perfect sense. I think that you and I are in at least general agreement on what Acts 2 means, my disagreement was with Rachel who presented an interesting and novel interpretation that, while plausible, doesn't appear to be backed up by what's written.

Ah...what it really says Right Who, that's an unwarranted jump there Rachel; just from what's written. The only thing that it says it that they heard what the 12 were saying in their own language, it does not say what specific language any of the 12 were speaking, but it does say that they spoke with other tongues. Unless there is something elsewhere to contradict this, the logical reading would be that the apostles were speaking the languages listed in Acts 2, not that they were speaking their native language which was miraculously heard by the listeners as their own native tongues. Your conclusion is not supported by the facts that you present. Well, you haven't really "sold" it You haven't established that he was speaking his own language when Acts says that he was speaking in tongues. It clearly says that they heard "them" speak in their own language, this of course includes Peter, but is not limited to him It doesn't specify, you're right Yes it does. I suppose that it's possible that Peter was still speaking in tongues, but I don't consider it likely: there is a definite change, since we go from 12 men speaking a vague "wonderful works of God" to one man speaking a specifically worded speech. Thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning, but your conclusions don't flow from the verses that you refer to. Interesting speculation though.

Hmmm...never thought of it that way. :huh: I always had to repress a shudder at the people with tin ears, with no ability to feel the beat, leading songs by randomly waving their hands around...or the same people in the "audience", who didn't understand what a downbeat was and sang a different tune than than everybody else.

Pro Wrestling isn't real? The groundhog can't predict spring? :(