Goey

Danny, Very good.

Read my posts again. Where have I "insisted" on only one meaning? It's just that I find it quite interesting that, poof, all of a sudden phobos means something totally different.If there is an existing word in a language that accurately conveys the meaning a writer intends to convey, then why would the writer choose a different word, ascribe it a new meaning, and then expect folks to understand what he means? Take "godly fear" for example. There are other words such "eulabeia" or "entrepo" that better convey the idea of "godly fear" than phobos. Yet you and others (including translators) choose to ascribe a different meaning to phobos, seemingly to make your theology fit. Again, why would the writer use phobos when a better word already exists in that language? An appeal to the authority of Vine's or Strong's carries little weight here. Strong's many times simply adds a definition based upon how the King James translates a particular word. If a word is translated "green" 200 times and "red" one time, Strong's will asssign the word a second definition based upon the translation in the AV. (you should know this) Vine's is certainly not without bias and is not the final authority on biblical definitions. (You should also know this) Here are two verses to consider. Hbr 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear [eulabeia]: 2Cr 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear [phobos]of God. Danny, why do you suppose that the writer used eulabeia in Hebrews and phobos in Corinthians? Are you suggesting that the intended meaning is the same in both verses and that there is no difference in the meaning of the two Greek words?

Oldies, Consider Hebrew's 12:28 Godly fear in this verse is from the Greek "eulabeia", not "phobos". Reverence here is from the Greek "aidos". Neither of these is synonymous with "phobos". So you still haven't explained why phobos is used in the verses I listed, except that you offer a new definition for it. If the writers had meant "godly fear" don't you think they would have used some other word than phobos? Danny, all I see is you agreeing with Oldies and offering little of substance concerning why phobos was used in those verses instead of entrepo, aidos, or even eulabeia. How did phobos suddenly develop a new meaning?

Oldies, Observe the relationships that the great men of God in the Bible had with God. (Both old and new testament.) It wasn't that "yuk yuk, ol' buddy o' pal" kind of relationship I see with some Way/ex-Way folks. These men deeply revered God. They trembled in his presence. They took sin & transgressions seriously and knew they had to answer to God. I think God expects a bit more awe and reverence (fear/phobos) than what I see with a lot of folks who want to ham it up with God, like he's a fishing pal or drinking buddy. Not saying anyone here does that, but I do know several ex-TW folks round my area that do. OLdies, All the above are true, except the one where you say "there is nothing to fear". The Bible tells us of many things we are not to fear. However, God Himself is not one of those things. BTW, you never did attempt to address the New Testament scriptures I posted that clearly say we are to fear (phobos) God. Why not give them a stab? Or do you just ignore them cause they don't fit with your belief? For starters, here are a few verses to consider. Act 2:43, Act 5:5, Act 5:11, Act 9:31, Act 19:17, Rom 3:18, Rom 8:15, 1Cr 2:3, 2Cr 5:11, 2Cr 7:1, Eph 5:21, Phl 2:12, 1Pe 1:17, 1Peter 3:15, 1John 4:18.

Man's idea of what good is, may be different than God's. Mercy = Good Forgiveness = Good Kindness = Good Punishment = Bad? Consequences of sin = Bad ? If we define good in terms of feel-good/warm fuzzies then it will probably never make sense. In a world where there are no conquences for sin, it won't make sense. Add to the mix the idea that "I am heaven bound and all hell can't stop me,(rape, murder, etc) and there you have it - No reason to fear God at all. After all God is good. Ok, then Danny, Oldies, take it to doctrinal and explain the verses I posted. Explain away the word "phobos" in those verses that include it. Explain why both Peter and Paul told folks (Christians) to fear (phobos) God.

It's not an easy thing to get after having TWI teachings so deeply engrained in us. 2Cr 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Phl 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Hbr 12:28 - Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: 1Pe 2:17 - Honour all [men]. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. These are just a few verses, but the idea of fearing God is pretty clear in the NT. VPW did a great job of obscuring/removing it, because it didn't fit in his cistern (Theological System) VPW took the Greek "phobos" (fear) and turned it into "reverence". Why? Cause he didn't understand it. God is indeeed love, but he is also a consuming fire.

Roy Posted: Possiblities Given: 1. Sign of the end of the world. 2. Because of sin. Roy, this is what's known as a false dilema. That is when only two possible choices are given when actually there are more. Folks have been clammmoring that the end is near since the first century. It seems that everytime there is another war, hurricane or earthquake, the clammoring elevates. Modern self-proclaimed 'end of times' prophets are pretty sure to attribute Katrina as a sign of the end times to get folks all hepped up about Christ's return. Yet, all predictions of the when the Lord will returns have been wrong so far to date. From 1951- 2004 there were a total of 31 major hurricanes that struck the US mainland, which averages to about .57 per year From 1901-1950 there were 34, which averages to about .68 per year. There were 10 from 1941-1950 while there were only 5 from 1991-2000. ------------------------------------------ The world is sinful. It has always been sinful. It is no more or less sinful now than it was 10 years ago or 1000 years ago. Why would God cause or allow something like this now, (and in New Orleans) for the purpose of punishing or eliminationg sin? Sin does not cause hurricanes. Besides, I thought God was done with floods of punishment/retribution several thousand years ago. There are other explanatins besides sin, or a sign that Jesus is comming real soon. Roy, you are seeing these hurricanes now because you are paying attention now. You weren't paying attention in 1941-51. When I see a hurricane hit Las Vegas, I make take notice.

Are you guys still trying to convince Oldiesman? This has been going on for years now. Oldies and possibly a few others can only seem to view TWI in light of thier own experience. As far as Oldies is concerned, your personal experience is meaningless, didn't really happen (or you are lying about it), if it contradicts his experience (real or imagined). Why waste your keystrokes?

Posted By MJ: And I thought God loved everyone. Silly me! So then, God only loves those that go to him and "the rest", (those that God doesn't love) are pretty much on thier own and got what they they deserved? And I thought the Law of Believing worked for "saint an sinner alike". Interesting...

You tell me. The earth has a core of molten metal/lava. From time to time it forces its way up and wreaks havoc in the form of a volcano. However, many years later the land surrounding the destruction is renewed even better than before. It is same with forest fires. floods and hurricanes. Consider the Missippi River Vally. It used to flood anually depositing rich silt renewing the land. Folks knew better than to build in the flood plain. But according to your model, if someone built in the flood plain and got wiped out, it would be the Devil doing it. Then you also argue that if the Devil didn't do it then it must have been God, and why would God wipe out those innocent people that settled on that flood plain. I would ask, why would God stop the anual flooding that enriches the soil? If God established an anual flood patern, then man builds levees,dams, and such, to hold back the water and build a city where the floods used to be. Is is God's obligation to hold the dams and levees closed? If they break and the city floods, how then is it God's or Satan doing? I think it is pretty obvious that HE did. I believe similarly. However, I do not beleive that current weather events, floods, earthquakes, etc, are being individually created and manuipulated by either God or the Devil. God created the earth and established the natural forces in it. This was long ago. It is only from that prospective that I beleive that God has a hand in it. This is not in question. No, it doesn't. The creation, creator is not in question here. What I am questioning is the notion that God or Satan pulls the strings NOW on such things. And that man's prayers can stop the natural forces that God set in motion long long ago. Yes, it does need interpretation. Not only does it need interpretation in it's own local context, but in the context of the bible as a whole, in the context of natural laws, and in the context of our own experiences.When a so-called 'Spiritual Law' which was developed from scripture seems to fail time and time again, maybe we should possibly consider that it was based upon a misunderstanding of the scriptures, instead of holding on to it at all costs. Maybe some time in doctrinal, but this has been hashed out quite a few times already.

Posted by Oldiesman: A hurricane is not a spiritual entity or force. It is a scientifically explainable natural force made up of wind, heat, moisture, etc. Oldies, I think you are confusing the spiritual with the natural. Natural forces exist regardless of the Devil. There doesn't need to be a spiritual cause for natural phenomenon. It's your intepretation of the scriptures that you believe -- actually it's VPW's. Let's not confuse the actual Word of God with a particular persons explanation or understanding of it. I believe the scriptures also. However I chose a different explanation than VPW's. It's not the scriptures that have been "disproven". It's yours, VPW's. and other similar interpretations of them that are question. Posted by Second James: And some folks kept the dirty water and called it a baby. VPW's 'Law of Believing' is not the baby, neither is his explanation of how the Devil operates. This I agree with.However, I see few here that are suggesting otherwise. There is a difference between praying and accepting God's help, and thinking that the Devil created a hurricane and that you have the authority and power to stop it. To disagree with your view on prayer and faith, "is not going at at life alone." It is simply understanding things in the Bible differently.

If prayer or believing works a la PFAL, and the DEVIL created this hurricane, then those of you who believe that please explain. Why didn't your prayers or the prayers and beleiving of countless others stop this hurricane. You did pray didn't you? Prayer and believing is bigger than the Devil isn't it? Are you telling me that out of the several million folks in the path of that storm, that not one person prayed with enough "believing" to stop it? Not even the collecive prayers and believing of the thousands and thousands of folks that assuredly prayed was enough to turn Katrina back? Not one single person on the whole earth had the faith of a grain of mustard seed? Are you telling me that known science and physics is wrong concerning weather paterns and phenomenon such at hurricanes, floods and tornados , and that the "Devil did it"? OK then, why doesn't the Devil make huricanes in January? Or tornados when there are no frontal systems? Show me a January huricane in the Gulf of Mexico, or a tornado where there are no frontal systems, or an earthquake where there is no fault line or volcanic activity, and I might consider that Satan had a hand in it.

The reason is obvious. Bush and Cheney along with Rumsfeld and officials at Halliburton, developed a secret weather machine that can create huricanes. This machine located on a secret ship far offshore created Katrina, and with the help of storm guiding planes(disguised as spotting planes) it was sent into New Orleans. Now, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld will line their pockets with kickbacks while Halliburton will reap great financial rewards as their subsidiaries will soon get contracts for the cleanup and reconstruction of the New Orleans area.

I would say that a good portion of what was taught in PFAL was good doctrine(teaching). Jesus came, he died, he rose, God loves us, keys to understanding the bible, etc .... all prety good stuff. However, the errors were huge and were in areas that caused many to stumble and for all practical purposes invalidated TWI (1 2, and 3) as any kind of legitimate ministry. I am talking about things like, The Law of Believing, renewed mind, God wants you to have lots of stuff, tithing, obedience to leaders, don't give to the poor, over emphasis on power and manifestations at the expense of charity, redefining "love" to suit their purposes, etc ... And...The practical errors were even more destructive than the doctrinal ones.

I like feeding trolls......

No, assembling a flawless theology is not the problem. What people keep forgetting is there are only two religions - The truth of the Almighty God as expressed in His Word, and every other belief. What people have forgotten is that Babylon is the source of "every other belief" and mixing these two religions together is the source of the problem. Context WTH...."The problem" was not meant by Evan to mean the problem with Christianity as a whole. You missed the point. We were discusing TWI's research efforts, that attempted to make everything fit perfectly -to the end that they we sloppy or deceptive. The "mystery" has already been revealed. Those roads will only lead you to Babylon people, not to the flawless Word of God. Again you missed the point. Evan was not refering to "THE MYSTERY" as revealed by Paul. When Evan said, "I find that assuming half of what I'm looking will remain a mystery to me..", I took that to mean that all the word studies and other such tasks designed to make things "fit like a hand in a glove", are mostly unnecessary in the context of 1 Cor 13. Then Evan adds: "That "takes the onus out of somehow needing to decipher every damned verse, phrase, concept, etc." I think what Evan was saying was that the crux of Christianity (faith and practice) is not dependant upon a theological system where every precept and idea must intellectually "fits like a hand in a glove." - It's ok not to understand every little thing in the bible/scriptures. And it's ok to wonder about some things that don't seem to fit. By taking that approach, the burden is lifted of trying to have perfect understanding by making/forcing every verse of scripture fit mathematically. We are more free then to understand the Word through "experience" and by way of the spirit of God, rather than by purely intellectual efforts. Did I get it right Evan?

You have exposed nothing except possibly your own ignorance and your own bias. .Newsflash For Allan! ... EVERYONE has certain biases. But this really isn't news at all, now is it? Besides, NO ONE ever said that the folks here are unbiased concerning religious/theological matters. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or self-proclaimed defender of the truth to figure that out and "expose" it. Alan, the funny thing is that by attempting to pointing out that others are not "unbiased" you make the absurd implication that YOU are unbiased. What a crock ! You are probably one of the most biased and most objectionably unobjective posters here. While you try to expose the bias of others you conceal your own bias behind a facade of 'I am a Christian' . Alan, You profess that you are "Christian". So What? Christians do not agree on "the truths of God's word", so your profession is meaningless in regards to the bias you seek to expose. Christians are some of the most biased folks out there. But, are you telling us that YOU will posts "unbiased" comments on the "truths from Gods' Word" ?? LOL! -- Well, go ahead. Post what you think are some of the "truths from God's Word" and offer your "unbiased" comments on them. And while you are at it, why don't you set the example here and expose yourself and your true motives? -- Tell everyone here what YOUR background and YOUR current religious affiliations are? -- Where do you attend church or fellowships, and who are the leaders? -- What are the core doctrines? That way we can all understand how you became so unbiased. Ain't that like the pot calling the kettle black?

Posted by Second James Is it remotely possible that some of these folks are not actually "stupid" but rather deceived or maybe entrapped? It may not simply be a matter of intelligence. I split TWI in 82 becasue I saw warning signs that TWI was corrupt and becoming legalistic and abusive. Does my leaving in 82 make me smarter than someone who left in 85 or dumber than someone who left in 79? I don't think so. Should I feel superior and more intelligent than those that left after me? -- Should I wear it like a badge? -- Should I bow to the superior intelligence of those that left before me? You want to call these folks "stupid"? Go ahead. I prefer deceived, seduced, entrapped, or ensnared. Then of course there are those who's conscience has been seared. But the scripture indicates that even these were seduced. Is is stupidity that allows one to be seduced, entrapped or deceived? -- I don't think so.

It seems Manuscript 354 is quite obscure and infrequently used. I assume it to be Gregory's number 354 which dates to the 5th century. This manuscript is so obscure that it is not even included in most current lists. But there you have it folks, biblical research at its best. Based upon the omission by one and only one obscure (and not very highly regarded) manuscript, and VPW/TWI had the 'proof' that was needed to decree these verses as a 'forgery' and tidy things up so their theological system "fits like a hand in a glove."

Posted by thinkfish: Hmm ... let see now. You don't seem to like what Roy posts or anything that is positive towards God or the Bible for that matter, yet you dont skip these posts. Why don't YOU take your own advice and skip them? Since you don't skip what you don't like, then neither will I skip your's. GOT THAT!?!?

Posted by Alan, Alan, I think it's pretty sad that you feel the need to attack folks without cause or reason. And you say you are a Christian? What a crock! Why don't you just slither back into your cave?

Some of my favorites..... "Even you should be able to grasp this ideat." Say this one in public: "Have I ever brought up the $100 you owe me? No! Have I ever embarrassed you over this? Have I ever said how much I needed that money? No, and I never will. "Didn't we already have this discussion right before you went to alcohol rehab?" "Considering your family background, it's a wonder you have come as far as you have" "Why, that is a brilliant question, coming from you!" "You weren't breast fed as a child, were you?"

Alan Posted, Alan, would you consider yourself a 'narcissistic' person... you know, one who looks in the mirror and adores his own beauty while ruthlessly and egotisticaly persuing his own gratification, ambitions and dominance at the expense of others?

Let's give him a chance shall we?. It may be futile, but what the heck. If he doesn't come around, then we can all use the ignore feature. Wait, we don't have an ignore feature here ... silly me !

Alan, You may not be aware of how quoting works. When you quote someone using the quote feature, or even when you use quotation marks, the content must be exactly as it was originally written. Paraphrasing what sonmeone wrote, and then saying it is a quote, will get you a F in high school English composition and may get you booted out of college. While it may not have been your intention, what you did is considered intellectually dishonest since it does not accurately re-state what was the person actually wrote. Paraphrasing can alter the meaning and is a form of "private interpretatin" (using terms that you may understand.) Here is a tutorial about quoting. If you have a shred of honesty in you, you should edit or delete your post.