Now it looks like you may be assuming that everything written in the bible is literally true and actually took place.
You're projecting a presumption upon me that is unnecessary, unwarranted, and also untrue.
No, not everything that was written in the bible needs to be literally true to teach and communicate spiritual truth.
I agree. But if something is more literally true that we might think or are willing to view it from, then we will be blind to at least part (if not to the key essence) of truth that is written therein.
I'll steer clear of most of your discussion with Steve. However, this statement did catch my attention, as I am probably (at least partly) responsible for trying to clarify the matter, and understand what the exact difference is between spoken communication and language. (And I have yet to better see it.) Not to prove something which I already see as being or know is unproveable, but to show that your "biblically based" position against it may not be as airtight as you have portrayed.
TLC, you are so late on the scene with that particular observation/claim that it's not even funny. I came to my assertion after painstakingly going over every relevant verse in the New Testament and demonstrating its consistency. You're going to have to do a little bit better than "nuh-uh" to refute it.
And why am I the only one here taking the Bible at its word on the subject instead of redefining it beyond recognition?
It's like they don't even read my posts. Yes, I understand, it's invisible and non-corporeal, intangible, and my tricorder isn't calibrated to detect it."
TLC, you are so late on the scene with that particular observation/claim that it's not even funny. I came to my assertion after painstakingly going over every relevant verse in the New Testament and demonstrating its consistency. You're going to have to do a little bit better than "nuh-uh" to refute it.
Late, maybe. But, I didn't just "nuh-un" it.
And why am I the only one here taking the Bible at its word on the subject instead of redefining it beyond recognition?
It's like they don't even read my posts. Yes, I understand, it's invisible and non-corporeal, intangible, and my tricorder isn't calibrated to detect it."
Anything but admit there's no dragon.
Maybe there's a post that you (or somebody else) made somewhere with the concession that glossolalia can or might be an authentic form or means of communication, but if so, I hadn't seen or read it.
Neither have I seen or read elsewhere that you (or anyone else here) have clarified what or how anything was "said" between the serpent and Eve.
It's been tossed out as being hypothetical or figurative, and subsequently irrelevant to what (or how anything else in the Bible) is or can be said between man and God.
IF it is so darn irrelevant here in Genesis how the serpent is "said" to have said anything unto the woman, then why put or suppose how a man "speaketh" unto God is any more necessary or important?
(Sagan was an intelligent man, no disagreement there, but he never embraced Christianity or viewed reality from that perspective.)
Do you have any evidence that the serpent did something other than "speak"? This whole dance of "what was the form of the serpent's communication" strikes me as more excuses for why we don't see a dragon.
No, Sagan was not a Christian. But that does not invalidate his illustration. It stands whether he was a non-theist, a Scientologist, a Muslim or a Buddhist.
I don't know where my verse-by-verse breakdown of the word "tongue" was posted. I have no interest in digging it up at this point. If someone else remembers, kindly copy and paste it here instead of reviving yet another dormant thread.
And, yes, you did just "nuh uh" the notion that tongues = languages. I see no verses to support any alternate hypothesis, and certainly no exploration of the verses in question.
I made numerous attempts, all of which were ignored, to direct the doctrinal assumption behind my assertion about modern SIT to this thread, which is properly placed in the doctrinal forum. Although I did lay out my reasoning in the other thread, I am laying it out here in greater detail for anyone who chooses to look for it. I think it's a fair question.
What are tongues in the Bible?
To begin with, I'm going to set the verses in I Corinthians 12-14 aside. Saving them for last, as it were.
The word "glossa" appears in the following verses:
Mark 7:33 [refers to the physical organ]
Mark 7:35 [refers to the physical organ]
Mark 16:17 [considered by many scholars to be a fraudulent insertion into the original gospel of Mark, those who accept it as canonical agree that "new tongues" is a reference to existing languages new to the speaker, not to the planet].
Two uses in Luke refer to the physical organ.
Acts 2:3 [the word appears as a physical description of the fire that appeared on the heads of the apostles. Has nothing to do with speaking or language].
Acts 2:4 [the context clearly states that the "other tongues" were known, human languages. Unless the Mark 16 verse is accepted, this is the first use in the New Testament of tongues as a language, and it is specifically in reference to the manifestation of speaking in tongues].
Acts 2:11 [this verifies that the tongues in v. 4 are real, human languages].
Acts 2:21 [a metaphorical reference to the actual tongue, where the tongue is put for the speech of the speaker. Good news made him happy and he said so].
Acts 10:46 [a reference to the manifestation. No reason to assume it's referring to anything other than a human language, whether or not those present understood the utterance. Peter is present at this incident and surmises it to be the same as what he experienced in Acts 2, which was known human languages. How did he know? Either he understood it (not likely), or the same God who gave Him profound revelation to get him to this location in the first place revealed it to him].
Acts 19:6 [Again, the manifestation, and again, no reason to believe the meaning of tongues changed for the writer, Luke, who for no reason failed to tell us about the change. It's a human language, regardless of whether anyone around understood].
Romans 3:13 [physical organ]
Romans 14:11 [likely a metaphorical reference to the physical organ, with the tongue put for the person speaking. Every knee shall bow + every tongue shall confess = God will be honored in the deeds and words of those of whom He is speaking].
Skipping I Corinthians...
Philippians 2:11 [same as Romans 14:11]
Five references in James, all dealing with the physical organ, literally or metaphorically.
I Peter 3:10 [metaphorical reference to the physical tongue].
I John 3:18 [tongue is put for the words of the speaker: not a reference to language, but speech].
Revelation 5:9 [human languages]
Revelation 7:9 [human languages]
Revelation 10:11 [human languages]
Revelation 11:9 [human languages]
Revelation 13:7 [human languages]
Revelation 14:6 [human languages]
Revelation 16:10 [physical organ]
Revelation 17:15 [human languages]
It should be noted that the in the references in Revelation, the languages stand in for the people who speak them. But the underlying reality of human language is rather rightly taken as a given.
So we see, then, that outside of I Corinthians 12-14, tongues has two meanings: the physical organ, either literally or metaphorically, or human languages. In no verse is there even a hint that tongues might be referring to something else.
Let's look at one other verse, since it has come up in conversation:
Romans 8: 26-27
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
I'm going to ignore the argument over whether to interpret this verse under a Trinitarian framework or a Biblical Unitarian view, because it's not particularly relevant.
Is this verse speaking about SIT? I'm pretty sure it is. Not 100 percent, but SIT makes perfect sense as the subject matter to me.
What does "groanings which cannot be uttered" mean? Does it mean sounds that are not a human language? I highly doubt that was the intent of the writer (or the Author). After all, if the sounds are not a human language, then the infirmity is not just ours, but the Sspirit's as well! I believe the clearest explanation for this verse, the one most in line with what the Bible teaches, is that the infirmity is the believer's, and it is the believers who find it impossible to put their "groanings" into words. The spirit has no trouble with this, and SIT, if applied here, corrects our infirmity. In light of the clear verses identifying SIT as producing human languages, this view makes the most sense to me. This verse does not change SIT from a language to a linguistically meaningless utterance. It changes our inability to express ourselves in words to an ability to express ourselves in words through the Sspirit's intervention.
So let's move back to I Corinthians.
I Corinthians 12:10 [kinds of tongues/interpretation of tongues: still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages, consistent with every other verse in the Bible in which this word does not refer literally or metaphorically to the physical organ].
I Cor. 12:28 [diversities of tongues: still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages]
I Cor. 12:30 [still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages. It's the same manifestation and there's nothing in the text to signify a change of meaning].
I Cor. 13: 1 [tongues of men and angels: tongues of men is presented as normal, tongues of angels as a hyperbole. Tongues is still languages here. Is "tongues of angels" literal and not hyperbole? I think not, but honest Christians disagree. So be it. I still think it's a huge stretch to suggest that somewhere between Acts and Corinthians, tongues of angels became the norm. The apparent tone of the discourse Paul is in the middle of strongly suggests tongues of angels is, in fact, hyperbole. It's also being put down in comparative value to love].
I Cor. 13:8 [A reference to the manifestation, which produces human languages unless you take tongues of angels to be both literal and the norm, neither of which seems justified by the context].
I Cor. 14:2 [The word unknown is not in the text. The person doing it is speaking to God, not men, IN A LANGUAGE the speaker does not know. It's still a tongue, and the meaning of that word has not changed. That "no man understands" is to be expected in an ordinary worship setting, which is the context of this verse. This says nothing about any other setting. It does not bar anyone from understanding in any setting. It is merely describing the normative, worship experience. It has no bearing on the language produced; only on the extreme unlikelihood of anyone in a worship setting understanding it. What is produced is still a human language].
I Cor. 14:4 [still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages]
I Cor. 14:5 [twice: still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages]
I Cor. 14:6 [still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages]
I Cor. 14:9 [this appears NOT to be a reference to the manifestation, but a reference to speaking in a known language with the understanding. The tongue here is either a metaphorical reference to the physical organ or a reference to a known language itself. If the former is true, it affects neither my position nor those who disagree with me. If the latter is true, we have an explicit statement of what I've been taking as a given: tongues are languages, period. Alas, I think the former explanation makes the most sense. In context, however, I think the use of that word here indicates that tongues are simply languages, and there's nothing complicated about it].
Nine more references in I Cor. 14. In all of them, they are talking about the manifestation, the same manifestation described in Acts, which produced human languages and never, not once, indicated that something else was being produced.
There is ZERO evidence that SIT produces anything other than a human language, UNLESS one takes I Cor. 13:1 literally and ignores the rather obvious hyperbole Paul is employing. He did not claim to speak in the tongues of angels, or even that there IS such a thing. He merely says IF HE DID, it would still not be as valuable to him as love. That SIT is tongues of men is a given. It's tongues of men in every other Biblical usage that does not refer, literally or figuratively, to the physical organ.
The original writer and readers of Paul's letter would have been utterly baffled by the assertion that they were doing anything other than producing human languages. It runs counter to every other use of that word in the Word. It is, as I have called it, a retrofit designed to explain why people who SIT today are NOT producing languages. Suddenly, 2,000 years later, the Bible isn't promising human languages.
Sorry, I don't buy it. That's my doctrinal position. If you disagree with it, there is no need to argue with me on the conclusions I draw from it. We're simply not going to agree, and that's that.
But if something is more literally true that we might think or are willing to view it from, then we will be blind to at least part (if not to the key essence) of truth that is written therein.
Now you are assuming that we can change the way things in the bible are written to meet our own views. Instead some additional scriptural analysis should be included. And this would include how things were communicated in one time versus another time. For example, no mention of the devil in the Old Testament. For the KJV version 61 references of devil in the New Testament. And regarding your usage here of the word "blind". Do you at least see what the first and greatest deception that was promoted? And this deception or as you have worded as 'blind" is still promoted today by Christian churches. I will even give you a hint as to what this is. "You will not surely xxxx" And what is taught today in many churches after someone stops breathing? Where do they say they go?
Do you have any evidence that the serpent did something other than "speak"?
This whole dance of "what was the form of the serpent's communication" strikes me as more excuses for why we don't see a dragon.
No. The question was not what was "other than," but what it actually was. WW has stated, in so many words, that if (such and such), then it had to be in some kind of language.
Technically, I'd be inclined to agree with that, if the use of the word "language" allowed for the inclusion of how Eve may have perceived reality.
But, the inclusion of any reality beyond the one Sagan could see (and couldn't find a dragon in) is a stumbling block. Or maybe a roadblock. Seems impassable, either way.
And, yes, you did just "nuh uh" the notion that tongues = languages. I see no verses to support any alternate hypothesis, and certainly no exploration of the verses in question.
I've been in no rush to get there. Shoot, we can't even make it past the first one here in Genesis, which gets tossed aside as being irrelevant. (But I don't believe it is.)
Ok, TLC. We're in doctrinal. This thread is supposed to be about what Biblical SIT is. We really shouldn't be entertaining my skepticism.
No more invisible dragons. My point has been made anew.
Maybe we'll get to a few of those other verses... eventually.
Mark 7:35 (because I'm interested in taking a closer look what "the string of the tongue" might mean or communicates)
maybe Rom.8:26-27.
1Cor.14.
But, for now, I'm a bit stuck on how some think or say the serpent spoke to Eve. Via language? Or not? (But if not, why not?) Or, does it just not matter? (The essential importance of it being... they communicated.)
What? What (or who) do you suppose "the devil" is or means?
Maybe a little better or clearer than you're giving me credit for, Mark.
Actually, I think there's a much greater blindness that has afflicted all mankind ever since the fall.
Death is only one aspect of it.
Now in your post 260 you quote some, but leave out lines of my post to promote your own views which disagree with others. You are acting now like your serpent of the book of Genesis. Here again is my actual post.
Now you are assuming that we can change the way things in the bible are written to meet our own views. Instead some additional scriptural analysis should be included. And this would include how things were communicated in one time versus another time. For example, no mention of the devil in the Old Testament. For the KJV version 61 references of devil in the New Testament. And regarding your usage here of the word "blind". Do you at least see what the first and greatest deception that was promoted? And this deception or as you have worded as 'blind" is still promoted today by Christian churches. I will even give you a hint as to what this is. "You will not surely xxxx" And what is taught today in many churches after someone stops breathing? Where do they say they go?
And then you don't answer my questions. The answer to the deception seen in the book of Genesis is "You will not surely die". And today in churches they often think after death people go directly to heaven. Did Jesus Christ go directly to heaven after death? No, instead he is the first to rise from the dead to have eternal life. If people after death go directly to heaven or as the deceptive figurative serpent states in the book of Genesis, "You will not surely die". Then why do we need Jesus Christ at all?
Now you are leaving out some of my post to promote your own views which disagree with others. Here again is my actual post.
And then you don't answer my questions. The answer to the deception seen in the book of Genesis is "You will not surely die". And today in churches they often think after death people go directly to heaven. Did Jesus Christ go directly to heaven after death? No, instead he is the first to rise from the dead to have eternal life. If people after death go directly to heaven or as the deceptive figurative serpent states in the book of Genesis, "You will not surely die". Then why do we need Jesus Christ at all?
Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not making much sense out of most of your post, and I sure don't understand how it relates to the topic of this thread. So, no, I didn't (and still don't) feel compelled to answer the rest of your questions.
Ok, TLC. We're in doctrinal. This thread is supposed to be about what Biblical SIT is. We really shouldn't be entertaining my skepticism.
No more invisible dragons. My point has been made anew.
Given that we are in doctrinal, I'd like to make a comment or two about how "doctrinal" issues in general are approached. (And I'll no doubt step across several boundaries of the thread.)
Like many others here, I was likewise schooled in many of the basic tenets of research at TWI. (Perhaps one of differences I seem to have experienced though, was the amount of control over what should or could be researched that is reported by some here. From my perspective, precious little... if anything... was off limits. Maybe part of that was simply my perception of it... but neither was I that unfamiliar with the research team at HQ.) In short, the great majority of it was built or done (however you care to say it) around the study and working of languages (primarily Greek, of course, but it didn't exclude Aramaic or Hebrew.)
In the many years since, it appears that this is still the same foremost means or manner that most here, and in the offshoots (that I've looked at) of the Way - especially including those in Walter C's Research Group(s), use to consider, reconsider, reformat or simply discuss doctrine. However, there is such a propensity to indulge in the minutia of languages, that it seems that a broader scope of the truth is mistakenly shelved or systematically overlooked and ignored. (And don't think that I too haven't been there and done that. Being so guilty of it is, in part, why I see it more easily now.) Furthermore, while some may have never bought into this methodology of "research," take into consideration that this was not at all restricted to how TWI did (or does) "study" the Word. It's actually very common among scholars and intellectuals, and I don't think of it as an easy obstacle for some to overcome (or look around.) It tends towards a certain myopia, much like staring at a computer screen all day tends to ruin your vision. I say this, in part, because of how long I was stuck in the same position of having almost no other way to "think differently" about many scriptures. In other words, if I wanted to consider what else a verse could mean, I resorted to little more than picking away at the exact word meanings of the language(s) it was written in to see "what else" might show up there. Not that this was (or is) ineffective. It works extremely well for doing just that. (Problem is, it probably does it too well, being that's about all it does.)
Consequently, I realize that how I appear to be approaching this issue of SIT makes no sense whatsoever to some (or many) of you, as I seem to be looking at it from the side of the Sagan's invisible dragon, and thinking about "How does (any) spirit speak or hear?" Is the only way to think about or consider how the spirit itself makes intercession, or how my spirit prayeth, to pick apart the meaning of each word in the verse where these things are mentioned?
I don't recall the time or place we discussed it but one of the issues that was raised in relation to this subject is The Great Principal. It's incongruous with other teachings on the matter. Supposedly, God, being spirit, can only talk to spirit (spirit can only talk to spirit.). Contrast that with The Great Principle, which states that God, being spirit, talks to your spirit (so far so good), which, in turn, talks to your mind (oops). Do you see the problem with this? I don't have a scanner. Maybe someone could scan the chart and post it here to make the point a bit clearer. We had a discussion on it a couple years ago.
Biblically, "The Great Principle" is neither great nor a principle. There's nothing in the Bible to articulate it or substantiate it. If our spirit can communicate with your mind, then God's spirit can communicate with your mind.
Contrast that with The Great Principle, which states that God, being spirit, talks to your spirit (so far so good), which, in turn, talks to your mind (oops). Do you see the problem with this? I don't have a scanner. Maybe someone could scan the chart and post it here to make the point a bit clearer. We had a discussion on it a couple years ago.
Of course. (So there's no need to scan squat.)
If/when considering how spirit speaks (or hears) anything, the "contact point" of interconnectivity (or communication) does become an issue to ponder. And the so called "Great Principle" appears to be as confusing as it is helpful. Spirit to spirit to mind. Spirit to spirit might be one thing; spirit to mind another. So little is known about either spirit or the mind, most of it is like groping in the dark. The only salient points to any of this may be that spirit can and does communicate with spirit, that spirit can and does influence the mind (whether we recognize it as such, or not), and that the mind (as it was originally designed by God) in some way should have the potential to detect or perceive things which are spiritual.
This topic seems to have at least "two things" going on now (SIT and Biblical research). Rather than "choose", I will say a bit about both:
SIT:
This discussion has caused me to re-think the entire notion of speaking in tongues. To be honest with you all, I was not truly convinced that I was actually doing something supernatural when I first did that. At the end of my first PFAL class, though very embarrassed, I somehow muddled through the peer-pressure and did so, to the sheer delight of the class coordinator and the other grads present. And (though still not convinced in my heart about all of that) I merely "followed along with the programming", hoping it was!
Now of course, I wanted to believe I was doing something genuinely spiritual, so I really didn't question it a lot. But I must admit that I'm still embarrassed while SIT in front of people, even after all of this time!
In fact, I even tend to feel "a bit lacking" when I look back in my life, realizing that I just haven't been doing that as much as I probably should. However, I believe the dialogue here is guiding me somewhere else, rather than to continually judge myself and feel condemned about it. (Maybe there IS some light at the end of the tunnel after all?)
Besides, (according to TWI) weren't we supposed to be doing that all of the time, silently in our minds, even while doing other things in our physical lives (including thinking?) And that brings up another point: Try as I might, I have never managed to speak aloud (in English) and SIT simultaneously! (And I do believe I shall never understand those who say they can do that.)
Be that as it may, I would like this discussion to eventually take a look at the so-called "benefits" of SIT. Perhaps (if we can successfully debunk that notion) I might just be able to "get off the hook", and no longer be so concerned if I'm not speaking in tongues muchin my private life.
(One such idea is that SIT is (supposedly) "building yourself up spiritually". Is it really? Isn't my spirit already full enough to begin with? And (according to 1Co 12:11) isn't God the one who energizes the manifestations anyway…and not me? Hmmm...)
Biblical Research:
Sure, we've all been taught about "the keys". I was happy (via PFAL, etc) to have learned many things which helped me to study the scriptures on my own. Although (at first, through ignorance) it appeared to me as though TWI "had the skinny" on these things, I find that they were truly a collection from just about everywhere, of which TWI was NOT the "original source"! (But I must say I was happy those keys all came to me "as a package", rather than having to amass it from everywhere else…for that would've taken quite some time for me to accomplish on my own.)
I find the following to be true: (To explain it, I will compare TWI's version of a verse along with what I believe it's really saying):
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether [or not] those things were so.
The key here seems to be the word whether. I see it as whether or not; that is: "pro or con", so to speak. They searched the scriptures for themselves…to see IF what was taught made sense to them. And if it didn't, then I'm sure other measures were taken. In this, they were truly being noble.
But TWI's attitude toward this noble way is just as though the verse is saying the following: (I've taken the liberty to use "strikethrough" to show what they changed, and then made their changes in red.) ENJOY!...
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the wordthe teachings of the TWI with all readiness of mind, and searched the scripturesonly within those teachings (and also what was taught about them elsewhere...by looking up all the verses used in The Way International Publications Scripture Index, and reading all of those articles and teachings as well) daily, whether those things were so.proving to themselves that what was already taught to them was the absolute truth of the Word of God—because they had made it their own!
After having studied on my own a bit, I seemed to have discovered something wonderful, and tried my best to give it to them…for far too long, until I finally left.
Little did I realize that (behind the scene) an edict had been given to the Corps to constantly be on the lookout for anything which deviated from what they termed as the present truth. And they were instructed to bring any of these things to the attention of the higher leadership.
(This edict seemed to have started not too long after "the split", during what LCM termed as "the fog". I suppose now that it was merely a measure taken to try preventing The Way to break apart even further than it had already: because of others' different views on their "already established" research.)
No wonder I had so much trouble sharing the new insight I thought to have found! For years, they fought me "tooth and nail"…merely because part of what I was trying to show them "differed slightly" from what they had already established as absolutely true. (But while with them, I never knew of the edict, so I merely considered they either weren't understanding me, or perhaps that I just wasn't explaining it well enough for them to see it.) --- Boy, was I a sucker!
As an aside: I once did an interesting study. There appears to be a "rather desperate time" when TWI began to liquidate some of their assets in order to provide some ready cash to meet their bills, etc. I found that among the first things sold were The Way College of Biblical Research (at Emporia, KS) along with its "sister facility", The Way College of Biblical Research: Indiana Campus. How interesting is it that these both involved Biblical research!
At a later time, I tried contacting the Research Department at HQ to get some clarification on a topic I was working, only to discover that it was no longer there! (Although I did speak with someone who had a title as such, there was truly no team at HQ actively involved in research.)
How utterly absurd is that? A Biblical research ministrywhich has no research department? That's like a cafeteria which has no food! (I should have noticed this long before, when the BRC (Biblical Research Center) was first replaced by The Victor Paul Wierwille Word Over the Word Auditorium!)
I don't recall the time or place we discussed it but one of the issues that was raised in relation to this subject is The Great Principal. It's incongruous with other teachings on the matter. Supposedly, God, being spirit, can only talk to spirit (spirit can only talk to spirit.). Contrast that with The Great Principle, which states that God, being spirit, talks to your spirit (so far so good), which, in turn, talks to your mind (oops). Do you see the problem with this? I don't have a scanner. Maybe someone could scan the chart and post it here to make the point a bit clearer. We had a discussion on it a couple years ago.
Just because you asked: (And I'm also including LCM's "cute addition" to it: The Great Prince's Pull, from his 1997 Advanced Class.)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
127
53
47
49
Popular Days
Feb 12
24
Feb 8
22
Feb 20
22
Feb 19
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 127 posts
Steve Lortz 53 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 49 posts
Popular Days
Feb 12 2016
24 posts
Feb 8 2016
22 posts
Feb 20 2016
22 posts
Feb 19 2016
21 posts
Popular Posts
Steve Lortz
A Word About A Word Tolerance is necessary for articulation. A hinge is an articulated device. One plate attaches to the door, the other plate attaches to the doorjamb, the two plates are joined tog
geisha779
Is 1 Corinthians 14:4 an instruction, a passing comment, or a commendable endeavor? Or . . . . is it smack dab in the middle of correction and juxtaposed to the demeanor that Paul wanted the Corinthi
waysider
Ummmmm.......You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?
Posted Images
TLC
You're projecting a presumption upon me that is unnecessary, unwarranted, and also untrue.
I agree. But if something is more literally true that we might think or are willing to view it from, then we will be blind to at least part (if not to the key essence) of truth that is written therein.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
TLC, you are so late on the scene with that particular observation/claim that it's not even funny. I came to my assertion after painstakingly going over every relevant verse in the New Testament and demonstrating its consistency. You're going to have to do a little bit better than "nuh-uh" to refute it.
And why am I the only one here taking the Bible at its word on the subject instead of redefining it beyond recognition?
It's like they don't even read my posts. Yes, I understand, it's invisible and non-corporeal, intangible, and my tricorder isn't calibrated to detect it."
Anything but admit there's no dragon.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Late, maybe. But, I didn't just "nuh-un" it.
Maybe there's a post that you (or somebody else) made somewhere with the concession that glossolalia can or might be an authentic form or means of communication, but if so, I hadn't seen or read it.
Neither have I seen or read elsewhere that you (or anyone else here) have clarified what or how anything was "said" between the serpent and Eve.
It's been tossed out as being hypothetical or figurative, and subsequently irrelevant to what (or how anything else in the Bible) is or can be said between man and God.
IF it is so darn irrelevant here in Genesis how the serpent is "said" to have said anything unto the woman, then why put or suppose how a man "speaketh" unto God is any more necessary or important?
(Sagan was an intelligent man, no disagreement there, but he never embraced Christianity or viewed reality from that perspective.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Do you have any evidence that the serpent did something other than "speak"? This whole dance of "what was the form of the serpent's communication" strikes me as more excuses for why we don't see a dragon.
No, Sagan was not a Christian. But that does not invalidate his illustration. It stands whether he was a non-theist, a Scientologist, a Muslim or a Buddhist.
I don't know where my verse-by-verse breakdown of the word "tongue" was posted. I have no interest in digging it up at this point. If someone else remembers, kindly copy and paste it here instead of reviving yet another dormant thread.
And, yes, you did just "nuh uh" the notion that tongues = languages. I see no verses to support any alternate hypothesis, and certainly no exploration of the verses in question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It was right here in this thread all along.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Now you are assuming that we can change the way things in the bible are written to meet our own views. Instead some additional scriptural analysis should be included. And this would include how things were communicated in one time versus another time. For example, no mention of the devil in the Old Testament. For the KJV version 61 references of devil in the New Testament. And regarding your usage here of the word "blind". Do you at least see what the first and greatest deception that was promoted? And this deception or as you have worded as 'blind" is still promoted today by Christian churches. I will even give you a hint as to what this is. "You will not surely xxxx" And what is taught today in many churches after someone stops breathing? Where do they say they go?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
No. The question was not what was "other than," but what it actually was. WW has stated, in so many words, that if (such and such), then it had to be in some kind of language.
Technically, I'd be inclined to agree with that, if the use of the word "language" allowed for the inclusion of how Eve may have perceived reality.
But, the inclusion of any reality beyond the one Sagan could see (and couldn't find a dragon in) is a stumbling block. Or maybe a roadblock. Seems impassable, either way.
I've been in no rush to get there. Shoot, we can't even make it past the first one here in Genesis, which gets tossed aside as being irrelevant. (But I don't believe it is.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok, TLC. We're in doctrinal. This thread is supposed to be about what Biblical SIT is. We really shouldn't be entertaining my skepticism.
No more invisible dragons. My point has been made anew.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
How you derived that from what I said escapes me.
What? What (or who) do you suppose "the devil" is or means?
Maybe a little better or clearer than you're giving me credit for, Mark.
Actually, I think there's a much greater blindness that has afflicted all mankind ever since the fall.
Death is only one aspect of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Maybe we'll get to a few of those other verses... eventually.
Mark 7:35 (because I'm interested in taking a closer look what "the string of the tongue" might mean or communicates)
maybe Rom.8:26-27.
1Cor.14.
But, for now, I'm a bit stuck on how some think or say the serpent spoke to Eve. Via language? Or not? (But if not, why not?) Or, does it just not matter? (The essential importance of it being... they communicated.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Now in your post 260 you quote some, but leave out lines of my post to promote your own views which disagree with others. You are acting now like your serpent of the book of Genesis. Here again is my actual post.
And then you don't answer my questions. The answer to the deception seen in the book of Genesis is "You will not surely die". And today in churches they often think after death people go directly to heaven. Did Jesus Christ go directly to heaven after death? No, instead he is the first to rise from the dead to have eternal life. If people after death go directly to heaven or as the deceptive figurative serpent states in the book of Genesis, "You will not surely die". Then why do we need Jesus Christ at all?
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not making much sense out of most of your post, and I sure don't understand how it relates to the topic of this thread. So, no, I didn't (and still don't) feel compelled to answer the rest of your questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Drive-by post between sleep and homework...
Hula is a language...
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I wonder if you can Hula in tongues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
"Dragons? We don't need no stinking dragons!"
(For those who may be wondering, the connection is from the movie The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, with Humphrey Bogart....concerning badges.)
SPEC
(15-second clip)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Given that we are in doctrinal, I'd like to make a comment or two about how "doctrinal" issues in general are approached. (And I'll no doubt step across several boundaries of the thread.)
Like many others here, I was likewise schooled in many of the basic tenets of research at TWI. (Perhaps one of differences I seem to have experienced though, was the amount of control over what should or could be researched that is reported by some here. From my perspective, precious little... if anything... was off limits. Maybe part of that was simply my perception of it... but neither was I that unfamiliar with the research team at HQ.) In short, the great majority of it was built or done (however you care to say it) around the study and working of languages (primarily Greek, of course, but it didn't exclude Aramaic or Hebrew.)
In the many years since, it appears that this is still the same foremost means or manner that most here, and in the offshoots (that I've looked at) of the Way - especially including those in Walter C's Research Group(s), use to consider, reconsider, reformat or simply discuss doctrine. However, there is such a propensity to indulge in the minutia of languages, that it seems that a broader scope of the truth is mistakenly shelved or systematically overlooked and ignored. (And don't think that I too haven't been there and done that. Being so guilty of it is, in part, why I see it more easily now.) Furthermore, while some may have never bought into this methodology of "research," take into consideration that this was not at all restricted to how TWI did (or does) "study" the Word. It's actually very common among scholars and intellectuals, and I don't think of it as an easy obstacle for some to overcome (or look around.) It tends towards a certain myopia, much like staring at a computer screen all day tends to ruin your vision. I say this, in part, because of how long I was stuck in the same position of having almost no other way to "think differently" about many scriptures. In other words, if I wanted to consider what else a verse could mean, I resorted to little more than picking away at the exact word meanings of the language(s) it was written in to see "what else" might show up there. Not that this was (or is) ineffective. It works extremely well for doing just that. (Problem is, it probably does it too well, being that's about all it does.)
Consequently, I realize that how I appear to be approaching this issue of SIT makes no sense whatsoever to some (or many) of you, as I seem to be looking at it from the side of the Sagan's invisible dragon, and thinking about "How does (any) spirit speak or hear?" Is the only way to think about or consider how the spirit itself makes intercession, or how my spirit prayeth, to pick apart the meaning of each word in the verse where these things are mentioned?
Myopia has set in, I tell you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I don't recall the time or place we discussed it but one of the issues that was raised in relation to this subject is The Great Principal. It's incongruous with other teachings on the matter. Supposedly, God, being spirit, can only talk to spirit (spirit can only talk to spirit.). Contrast that with The Great Principle, which states that God, being spirit, talks to your spirit (so far so good), which, in turn, talks to your mind (oops). Do you see the problem with this? I don't have a scanner. Maybe someone could scan the chart and post it here to make the point a bit clearer. We had a discussion on it a couple years ago.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Biblically, "The Great Principle" is neither great nor a principle. There's nothing in the Bible to articulate it or substantiate it. If our spirit can communicate with your mind, then God's spirit can communicate with your mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Of course. (So there's no need to scan squat.)
If/when considering how spirit speaks (or hears) anything, the "contact point" of interconnectivity (or communication) does become an issue to ponder. And the so called "Great Principle" appears to be as confusing as it is helpful. Spirit to spirit to mind. Spirit to spirit might be one thing; spirit to mind another. So little is known about either spirit or the mind, most of it is like groping in the dark. The only salient points to any of this may be that spirit can and does communicate with spirit, that spirit can and does influence the mind (whether we recognize it as such, or not), and that the mind (as it was originally designed by God) in some way should have the potential to detect or perceive things which are spiritual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
This topic seems to have at least "two things" going on now (SIT and Biblical research). Rather than "choose", I will say a bit about both:
SIT:
This discussion has caused me to re-think the entire notion of speaking in tongues. To be honest with you all, I was not truly convinced that I was actually doing something supernatural when I first did that. At the end of my first PFAL class, though very embarrassed, I somehow muddled through the peer-pressure and did so, to the sheer delight of the class coordinator and the other grads present. And (though still not convinced in my heart about all of that) I merely "followed along with the programming", hoping it was!
Now of course, I wanted to believe I was doing something genuinely spiritual, so I really didn't question it a lot. But I must admit that I'm still embarrassed while SIT in front of people, even after all of this time!
In fact, I even tend to feel "a bit lacking" when I look back in my life, realizing that I just haven't been doing that as much as I probably should. However, I believe the dialogue here is guiding me somewhere else, rather than to continually judge myself and feel condemned about it. (Maybe there IS some light at the end of the tunnel after all?)
Besides, (according to TWI) weren't we supposed to be doing that all of the time, silently in our minds, even while doing other things in our physical lives (including thinking?) And that brings up another point: Try as I might, I have never managed to speak aloud (in English) and SIT simultaneously! (And I do believe I shall never understand those who say they can do that.)
Be that as it may, I would like this discussion to eventually take a look at the so-called "benefits" of SIT. Perhaps (if we can successfully debunk that notion) I might just be able to "get off the hook", and no longer be so concerned if I'm not speaking in tongues much in my private life.
(One such idea is that SIT is (supposedly) "building yourself up spiritually". Is it really? Isn't my spirit already full enough to begin with? And (according to 1Co 12:11) isn't God the one who energizes the manifestations anyway…and not me? Hmmm...)
Biblical Research:
Sure, we've all been taught about "the keys". I was happy (via PFAL, etc) to have learned many things which helped me to study the scriptures on my own. Although (at first, through ignorance) it appeared to me as though TWI "had the skinny" on these things, I find that they were truly a collection from just about everywhere, of which TWI was NOT the "original source"! (But I must say I was happy those keys all came to me "as a package", rather than having to amass it from everywhere else…for that would've taken quite some time for me to accomplish on my own.)
I find the following to be true: (To explain it, I will compare TWI's version of a verse along with what I believe it's really saying):
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether [or not] those things were so.
The key here seems to be the word whether. I see it as whether or not; that is: "pro or con", so to speak. They searched the scriptures for themselves…to see IF what was taught made sense to them. And if it didn't, then I'm sure other measures were taken. In this, they were truly being noble.
But TWI's attitude toward this noble way is just as though the verse is saying the following: (I've taken the liberty to use "strikethrough" to show what they changed, and then made their changes in red.) ENJOY!...
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word the teachings of the TWI with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures only within those teachings (and also what was taught about them elsewhere...by looking up all the verses used in The Way International Publications Scripture Index, and reading all of those articles and teachings as well) daily, whether those things were so. proving to themselves that what was already taught to them was the absolute truth of the Word of God—because they had made it their own!
After having studied on my own a bit, I seemed to have discovered something wonderful, and tried my best to give it to them…for far too long, until I finally left.
Little did I realize that (behind the scene) an edict had been given to the Corps to constantly be on the lookout for anything which deviated from what they termed as the present truth. And they were instructed to bring any of these things to the attention of the higher leadership.
(This edict seemed to have started not too long after "the split", during what LCM termed as "the fog". I suppose now that it was merely a measure taken to try preventing The Way to break apart even further than it had already: because of others' different views on their "already established" research.)
No wonder I had so much trouble sharing the new insight I thought to have found! For years, they fought me "tooth and nail"…merely because part of what I was trying to show them "differed slightly" from what they had already established as absolutely true. (But while with them, I never knew of the edict, so I merely considered they either weren't understanding me, or perhaps that I just wasn't explaining it well enough for them to see it.) --- Boy, was I a sucker!
As an aside: I once did an interesting study. There appears to be a "rather desperate time" when TWI began to liquidate some of their assets in order to provide some ready cash to meet their bills, etc. I found that among the first things sold were The Way College of Biblical Research (at Emporia, KS) along with its "sister facility", The Way College of Biblical Research: Indiana Campus. How interesting is it that these both involved Biblical research!
At a later time, I tried contacting the Research Department at HQ to get some clarification on a topic I was working, only to discover that it was no longer there! (Although I did speak with someone who had a title as such, there was truly no team at HQ actively involved in research.)
How utterly absurd is that? A Biblical research ministry which has no research department? That's like a cafeteria which has no food! (I should have noticed this long before, when the BRC (Biblical Research Center) was first replaced by The Victor Paul Wierwille Word Over the Word Auditorium!)
SPEC
Edited by spectrum49Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Just because you asked: (And I'm also including LCM's "cute addition" to it: The Great Prince's Pull, from his 1997 Advanced Class.)
SPEC
Edited by spectrum49Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Awh... now ya done it.
ya went ahead and pooped in the pool, and there it sits... floating around.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. That is simply a reformatted version of a couple of the pages from VPW's Advanced Class syllabus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I wonder how many people ever hesitated at the obvious difference
between "seed" (as in a birth)
and the involvement of an external, discrete spirit, which bears
no resemblance to a birth or of "seed" in any definition.
vpw needlessly spirit-ized the meaning (what else is new?)
and vpw REALLY ran with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.