Bob

Gotta respect a woman who can hold her own when the entire world is falling down around her. Add her looks and a nice southern accent....nothing better. Back to the topic, I find it funny that TWI preaches against anyone doing "private interpretation" of the Bible, insisting on letting the "Word" speak for itself, when in fact they have done their own private interpretation of the private interpretation verse and have not let it speak for itself.

It's been probably 2 years since I posted on THE. Yet, it is here to welcome me back with open arms. I did not have to do six months of spiritual probation. I did not have to write letters stating how I got tricked by THE adversary into not posting. THE doesn't want my money (I hope not -->). I don't have to sell my house to come back. Therefore, THE is greater than TWI!

I forgot about him. Now it makes sense.

That was my point. There were no other heirs. Historical and Biblical evidence points to this. History shows there was a break in the line of Pharoahs at this time, where military commanders assumed the role. Exodus states that the current Pharoah did not know Moses, which means he didn't live in Pharoahs household, as Moses had -- otherwise, he should have known who Moses was. As a matter of fact, someone in Egypt associated with the Pharoah should have known who Moses was.

Well, I've forgotten what book it was I read about Moses' little speech problem in Exodus 4 and am unable to locate it. Either that, I'm imagining things. But doing a little digging around, I found there are 4 theories attempting explanation of this: 1) he stuttered (physical impairment) 2) he stammered (mental impairment) 3) he forgot the Egyptian language 4) he forgot the Hebrew language Judging just by the exact text of Exodus 4:10, 1 and 2 make sense. If you combine everything else known about Moses, 1 and 2 make no sense. 3 makes no sense since it is believed he lived in Egypt for 40 years before leaving. He was educated in Pharaoh’s household, which meant he got the best available, including the Egyptian language and, I believe, a couple other major ones. 4 kind of makes sense, but not really, especially if you believe what TWI taught, in that his own mother had a hand in his raising him until he was at least in his teens. If she was going to teach him about the God of the Hebrews, then he would probably need to know their language. Of course, the entire Exodus makes no sense to me. If Moses had been raised in Pharaoh's household by his daughter, he would have been considered a member of the household and in direct line of succession to be Pharaoh. If there were no other claims before him, he would be Pharaoh. His being plucked from the Nile by her would have only added legitimacy to his claim, being seen as a gift from the gods to the Pharaoh household. Since the time that is believed that the Exodus occurs is also a time when the Pharaoh line sort of petered out and military commanders were assuming the role, backed up in Exodus by a Pharaoh rising to power that "knew not Moses," then Moses did have a legitimate claim to the throne. Wouldn't it make more sense for God to have Moses go in and claim his throne, then declare the Hebrews free? Seems that most of the bloodshed could have been avoided. But, this is approaching Doctrinal Forum status, so I’ll leave it at that. Sorry I couldn’t find what I thought I remembered reading.

Sorry, didn't mean it that way. The class had a required weekly discussion meeting. My arrogant Way Brain was very disrupting to it. He was right to tell me what he did. He wasn't angry either, just trying to keep the discussion productive for the whole class.

TWI did teach that Moses forgot how to speak Egyptian, causing a sort of broken speech. God therefore had Aaron speak for him. It's a pretty lame explanation. Has anyone ever forgotten a language that was their primary language for 40 years? There is a better explanation, but I can't seem to recall it off the top of my head at the moment. I'll look it up when I get home (yes, I'm at work, but don't feel like working, and am looking for the first excuse to leave :)--> ).

Speaking of epiluo, I know I've seen your avatar somewhere and I just can't place it. Is it Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With The Wind?

Damn, you paint the grossest pictures. I can now imagine Rosey losing some weight, but the skin not shrinking with it, her knees trying to knock together, but ending up just being a muffle -- like having blankets between the knees. Stop it! I can't take it! :)-->

Yes, I'm begining to see the value in leaving the past in the past. I couldn't blame them either for not wanting to relive it.

From what I've seen of your work on this subject, and others you have posted on, you appear to be a rather intelligent woman. You're right about TWI making you feel inferior. I've felt the same, as I'm sure most everyone has. The feeling of inadequacy will go away. It requires rethinking everything TWI threw at you and looking for answers to questions you forgot you ever had, but you do eventually get to the point where you wonder how you ever got duped by that group. You're on the right track.

a·bey·ance 1. suspension - temporary inactivity or nonoperation Pretty much sums up the Way Brain syndrome, a suspension of brain activity.

And more to the point of this thread, I did discuss the definition of replenish with others. I didn't take it up the TWI deadwood, but would have gotten the same response. Anytime a point of logic concerning the Bible was discussed, that contradicted official TWI doctrine, TWI doctrine trumped it. If the logic was so glaringly obvious, the best response would be "hold it in abeyance." That stupid doctrine is one of TWI's best tools for keeping people from questioning them and continue towing the line.

Back in the early 90s, I took an Old Testament history class in college about a month after my first PFAL indoctrination session (something I don't recommend doing, a pure recipe for disaster). Early on, in a one-on-one discussion with the professor, I pointed out the Genesis 1:2 "was" should be "became." He looked at me kind of weird, thought a minute, then said he didn't think the Hebrew word there contained any notion that would support translating it that way. Of course, I then went to the word "replenish" latter on in Genesis, and its compliment in the flood story. That's when he put me in my place. He said that the Hebrew word there (of which language he was very well versed in) had nothing to do with restoring to a former state. It only means "to fill." He also said that's the danger in using the KJV, written in Old English. Latter on, I verified what he said about replenish. It is an Old English word and only means “to fill.” When I heard Craig repeat Vic's "why would God tell them to replenish the world if it didn't have something there before" in the WAP class, the first fissure in my respect for TWI's research authority erupted. Since then, the lava has flowed, destroying any and all TWI "research," and any respect I may have had for them. To be honest, I can't think of one thing TWI teaches that could be considered accurate. They are not a research ministry (nor the other two functions they claim, but we can leave those for another time). I barely escaped out of the Old Testament history class with a passing grade. The professor and I locked horns several times, to the point he finally told me to either go along with the class or drop out. I shut up and did what I was told. Wish I knew how to contact him now. I owe him a debt of gratitude for helping me to think straight. I would also like to take his class again.

Is Greece considered Eastern? Not sure about it. But, if you want to know about dogs in ancient Greece and Rome, I suggest: Dogs in Ancient Greece and Rome Aparently using dogs for hunting and farming tasks hasn't changed much over the years (with the exception of Eskimos, who probably didn't frequent Rome that much).

It was a profane greek usage, which is where Bullinger got it from:

I don't believe it was an illustration. I believe it was a profane greek usage. I could be wrong, but I've seen it elsewhere outside of TWI and Bullinger.

Vic's definition of epiluo, letting the dogs loose on the game, was correct, but his interpretation of the definition was wrong. The purpose of hunting dogs is to locate where the game is and flush it out, not attack it like a pack of wolves. They make known to the hunter where the game is so the hunter can apprehend it. It is uncovering something that is hidden. The section in Peter where "private interpretation" is used is more properly "one's own making known." The point is, the scriptures were not mens' ideas of God, it was the invisible God making known himself via the prophets of old. It has nothing to do with interpretation of what they wrote. Given that Vic was a lover of hunting dogs, and hunting with them, he should have known this. His twisting of it to promote his interpretation style of the Bible, which only promoted his ideas, is negligent at best, but more properly flat out dishonest.

It should, although the fact that he's dead might throw a kink in things.

This is an interesting question. It is a state ruling, applying only in Massachusetts. But, if this type of judicial logic were to make its way to Ohio... Ohio has a 1 year limitation on sexual harassment cases. But if they were reclassified as a breach of fiduciary duty, as they should be, TWI could be facing what the RC Church in Boston is -- multiple lawsuits for sexual abuse going back 25 years. It is not inconcievable that if this were to occur, given the number of people abused by TWI, they could face bankruptcy. Interesting...

Possible new avenue for those abused by clergy. Source: www.boston.com

I actually passed by an Environmental Police car on the highway last night. Couldn't believe it. It was an SUV, complete with the police lights on top, and "Environmental Police" plastered on the back. Only in this state...

Ameriquest is a major con-artist, preying on people having problems paying their bills. They monitor credit ratings, looking for people having financial trouble. They called me, offering to refinance my house at 100% (it was at 80% at the time), at the same interest rate I was currently paying. I told them to send me the paper work and I'd look it over. Paperwork came. Interest rate was higher than what was quoted over the phone. I dug a little deaper and found that they lock you into a minimum of 3 years, with a major pre-payoff penalty. The begining interest rate is only good for 2 years and jacks up afterward. So you are at a minimum stuck paying a high interest rate for a full year, which negates the savings of the first 2 years. People have lost their homes by financing with Ameriquest. They are not the only ones either. I get offers every week from similiar companies (a recent divorce left my financial situation in a state such that I'm a prime target for these people). A regular bank, or a mortgage broker are probablty the safest bets. Either way, having a lawyer you trust look over the paperwork first is your best defense. Vickles: If your current interest rate and payments are locked in, you should be ok. Just make your payments on time. It doesn't matter who owns the mortgage, it matters what is written into the mortgage when you signed it. It is very common for mortgages to be sold, but the sale does not change the original mortgage.

Actually, Rosie's time is up now. I remember when Craig stepped down. The reorganization to a President that wasn't the main teacher included a provision that it would be for 3 - 5 years. It has been 5 years as of this spring.

LLP, It's been over a month since we last heard from you on this topic. I'm still interested to know what your thinking on this is. I hope you have not dismissed it, but either way, and I can't speak for everyone here, it would be very helpful to me to know how you either justified TWI's position, or have done something other with it. Of course, if you don't want speak, that's fine too.