Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

The First Sin of Mankind


WaywardWayfer
 Share

Recommended Posts

An excellent point by point look at the lesbian teaching from the WAP class. Again, I don't know who put all this together, but if you were the ones who contributed to this - it's excellent and really helped me.

Posted for the other innie who has contacted me. icon_wink.gif;)-->

Segment #11

Here is what I was able to come up with in my research, granted, I am no Hebrew or Greek scholar, but I can read.

In Segment #5 the class proceeds to cover "Keys to the Word's Interpretation" In the verse, context, used before ("The Word of God defines its own terms").

It also states "Words must be in harmony with the verse", (great so far?) "Difficult verse must be understood in light of the clear verses. The key is, always double- and triple-check, and remind yourself of the clear verses on the subject"

By the time it gets to Segment #11, though, it throws out all sound interpretation principles and gets on this Eve kick.

I studied the teaching about Eve and the lesbian encounter:

Craig taught:

"saw"= to feel and enjoy; to look with pleasure.

This Hebrew word is NEVER used of touching physically (feel and enjoy), it refers to the sight only. It does refer to looking with pleasure.

Craig taught:

"tree"- used of idols; objects of worship; groves.

The word used here always refers to trees, wood, timber, firewood, etc. It NEVER refers to an idol or a grove. The word he is talking about according to his definition is asherah. EVERY occurrence of this word (asherah) refers to an object of worship. Craig’s usage violates the "used before" and "The Word of God defines its own terms" principles of research)

Craig taught:

"food" = dainty foods; delicacies; meat of desire,

He refers us to Job 33:20, but that’s talking about literal food. This word by itself never means "dainty". The next word he covers (pleasant) is where the "dainty" part comes from. This word only means food (Job 33:20 refers to choice food or a delicacy)

Craig taught:

"pleasant"= lustful, covetous; desirous, passionate--illicit passion; unbridled lust; passions of infamy

He refers to Romans 1:26, it helps HIS point, but doesn't work with the Word's context. This word "pleasant" is NEVER used concerning sex (check the context) it is an extreme desire and sometimes is not bad ( Prov 10:24 and 11:23) in the Gen 3:6 context , it obviously is not good. I still could not see the "sexual terminology". The way Craig presented it twisted the scriptures to fit what he wanted to teach.

Craig taught:

"eyes"= ayin (Hebrew)---- a homonym for fountain, referring to sexual climax. A homonym is a term that can have two or more meanings

Bullinger states, in Figures of Speech, that the term is given to words which are spelled exactly alike, but have different meanings, (the key is different meanings). When Bullinger gives his example he never talks about a single word used in its context as having different meanings (plural) it only has ONE meaning in the context it is used. The key is it must fit the context, the clear context, not the Craig Martindale twisted context.

It appears as though Craig was trying to lead us to believe that the "deeper, hidden meaning" of eyes is not the physical eyes, but some double meaning, the climax thing doesn't even fit the context no matter how hard you squeeze it.

Looking further into this I found in Solomon where the "fountain" was a woman’s orgasm closed up or something to that tune. The references are in Song of Solomon 4:12 and 15. Guess what, they use a totally different word for "fountain".

"wise"= sakal (Hebrew) to act wisely; to understand. (Hey he got one right!) Oh no!!! Not the Homonym again!!! he states " to lay crosswise or cross over (Gen 48:14); to cross over God's boundary.

Trying to be double tongued in the same verse again! Gen 48:14 is referring to Israel switching (crossing) his hands in order to place his blessing (right hand) on Ephraim even though he was younger. to he (Israel) "cross over" God's boundary?

Bullinger gives a good explanation "as Jacob (Isreal) was asked to bless Ephraim and Manasseh according to "the will of man" (Joseph) (Gen 48:14) Both cases are instanced in Heb 11:20,21 as acts of "Faith," ie., faith's exercise of gifts contrary to "the will of the flesh," as in the case of Isaac; and contrary to "the will of man" in the case of Jacob.

Bullinger also renders this verse under the Figure "personification" as "He made his hands to understand".

It was God's will for Israel to switch hands, he knew who to choose, if Joseph had not have positioned Israels hands for him (Israel), he (Israel) would not have had to switch them. I don't believe he crossed over God's boundary, he crossed over mans standard.

This word (wise) means "to be prudent, circumspect, to wisely understand" it fits perfect with the context and dosn't take any grammatical gymnastics to do it!

"she took" = to be carried away by passion; enticed away

(Where did passion come from? Another word to suck us in.

Of course the verse is loaded with sexual terminology, he's making up the definitions as he goes!)

On pg. 54 and 55 of the syllabus Craig makes statements about "The Fall", "He (the Adversary) will lie as big as he can, as quickly as he can. The bigger the lie, the more quickly people buy it and accept it" and on page 55 "The lies stack up so quick, Eve can't control it."

That is how I feel about what he taught concerning this verse, Craig and the following Way Corps teachers went through this in a blaze, I didn't even know what hit me and I sat through it several times. I never questioned it.

Another statement Craig made was on pg. 9 he states; "The key to understanding this Scripture is learning to read it clearly, not to read into it, but let it speak to you"

(speaking out of both sides of his mouth?)

I remember after he was done with his presentation, he said something to the affect of "do you see it? Well too bad, I do!" I think he could see that people might be confused.

Here is some more information on the word for "wise" (sakal) it is from the Theological Word book of the Old Testament (TWOT).

05895 lk;f' found in TWOT #2263

2263.0 lk;f' (´sakal) I, wise(ly), understand, prosper. Nine other English words translate the verb: instruct, prudent, et al. (ASV same in most instances; RSV stresses the success, prosper concept for ´sakal).

Of the seventy-four times the verb from is used, all but two appear in the Hiphil stem. In many instances ´sakal is synonymous with b?(see µokm?or discussion of synonyms), but there is a fine distinction. While b?indicates "distinguishing between,

" ´sakal relates to an intelligent knowledge of the reason. There is the process of thinking through a complex arrangement of thoughts resulting in a wise dealing and use of good practical common sense. Another end result is the emphasis upon being successful. (fits to me)

´sakal also involves one in what he considers, or pays attention to. God provides for the afflicted and needy that they ponder who is their benefactor (Isa 41:20). The righteous one is said to take note of the house of the wicked; this acting wisely is directed toward a thing, the evil abode (Prov 21:12, a difficult passage, taken as "the righteous one"). The leaders of Israel's household gathered together before Ezra in order to give attention to the words of the Law (Neh 8:13).

Still another usage of the verb is to have insight or comprehension. The man who would boast of anything should boast that he has insight into, and knows the Lord (Jer 9:23). The Hiphil infinitive ha´k¢l is a substantive meaning "insight, " seen as God's gift to Israel through his rulers and teachers (Jer 3:15). This word also occurs in Prov 1:3 where it is stated that the book was written to give the young man "insight" into wise behavior. As in Jeremiah, wise behavior means conforming one's life to the character of God.

Another usage stresses the idea of causing to consider, giving insight, and teaching. David indicates that the Lord made him understand the details of the pattern of temple furniture (used as the direct object relating to a thing, 1Chr 28:19). Gabriel gave Daniel insight or skill (Dan 9:22).

There is also the meaning of acting circumspectly or prudently. In a time of evil the prudent know to keep silent (Amos 5:13). God has his way of determining whether a general population is acting wisely so as to seek him (Psa 14:2). A wife who acts prudently is described as from the Lord (Prov 19:14). Likewise, the suffering Servant acted prudently in fulfilling the work assigned to him (Isa 52:13).

The verb also may mean to prosper or have success. Saul feared David because the latter was prospering greatly as a result of the Spirit's presence in his life to guide. Indeed, by this successful behavior David in effect ousted Saul from his position of leadership (1Sam 18:14, 15). Jeremiah emphasizes that judgment was pronounced on the shepherd leaders of a favored nation. The leaders were regarded as stupid because they did not seek the Lord. As a result, they would not prosper and their flocks would be scattered (Jer 10:21).

The word (sakal) used in Gen 48:14 is in a different form than all the other occurrences, it has the "Peil" stem, Gen 48:14 is the ONLY place this word is used (in that form). The Peil stem usually expresses an intensive or intentional action.

What Isreal did was intentional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here I thought the first sin of mankind was the wearing of too-tight loin cloths by the male dancers that were a tribal offshoot of Cain's family and first worn in their production of "Athletikos De Sol - Standing in the Crack".

Hmmm, I stand corrected!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Refiner:

Greek and Hebrew words can be an important key to understanding, especially if the translation can be shown to be inaccurate, or if more than one Greek word is translated by only one English word.

The Way, however, put way too much emphaisis on it.

Martindale's butchering of this verse is a good example of how TWI twisted this legitimate "key" to push it's unbiblical doctrines. Wierwille did it as well, although seldom as outrageously as this. He was a bit more subtle in his approach and seemed to have a better sense of what would freak people out than Martindale did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there you go, Tref. icon_biggrin.gif:D--> Although based on my indepth research the unusually tight and form fitting loin cloths worn by the male dancers actually contributed to a reduction in fertility, if you know what I mean. So while the purpose of the pagan production was to produce a more purposeful and powerful understanding of what it meant to "stand in the crack" of the congregation, it actually caused future generations to become somewhat watered down, so to speak. Thus, the tribe became smaller and smaller, in much the same that that the dancers loin cloths and associated equipment did. Tragic, really. Thus, the first, "original" sin was actually one of bad art, specifically bad dancing by men in inappropriate apparel. After that it was all downhill.

I'm sure LCM had first hand knowledge of this.

It's so Amazing!!! Isn't it???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back when I was examining the WayAP class segment by segment, I was finding errors on every page, but this section of the class was what really convinced me of the utter worthlessness of anything Martindale taught, and led me to have the same opinion of Wierwille. (I think I was one of those who contributed to Wayward's information...I recognize a few turns of phrase icon_cool.gif)

As Wayward so ably presented, none of the words carry the meaning or nuance that he assigns to them. They are ordinary words, used in an ordinary sense that he decides must have sexual connotations. It was abundantly clear, using research materials available to any Way believer, that Martindale was full of carp. What got my attention though, even when I was a loyal "innie", was his use of homonyms to prove his point. Yes, homonyms are words that are spelled identically, but as Wayward stated, you have to PICK ONE! The context determines which one. "Fountain" and "crossing over" make no sense in the context. His explanation shows how little he knows of grammar, Greek, Hebrew, or English.

But this approach is not new. Karl Kahler, in The Cult That Snapped presents his notes on the "Athletes of the Spirit" teaching done by Martindale, and approved by Cummins and Wierwille. The same made up definitions and weaseling on translations are evident even back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BOD definitely has seen the rebuttal to this "teaching", yet chooses to continue with the Martindalean "Original Sin of Mankind".

After presenting this rebuttal to John Reynolds and T*m H, my region coordinator, I was told that even if it can't be documented from the bible, it "must be true", "Because of what we know about homosexuality". icon_eek.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing possibly hindering them from moving forward in this subject is deep rooted in the leaders. Having been taught to work and make your own that which has already been opened up to us by the MOG. If not taught from him first we were not to share our findings with the household, it was never said (to me anyway) that I could not research it just never speak it.

This contradicted the WC research papers. Which were stopped by LCM stating they were rehash. So we were not to research that which he did not teach first, yet he was ....ed we gave him no new light in our research papers.

Within the last few years they were assigned to research 'debt' but never changed policy so you know the truth of the subject was just deep-sixed and probably the WC that found it were put on watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oak, I believe I have used quite a bit of your research and observations on here in my rebuttals at home. If I save or print something to work on from home I take any references to the site and posters off the document. That's why I don't know who poasted what, but thank you very much for posting the things you do!

The problem with Joe Believer sharing things they find that contradict what TWI teaches is that we don't have any credibility and they think we're stupid. My own family doesn't believe me when I show them contradictions, but when someone from HQ shares the exact same thing they ooh and aaahh over it like they've never heard it before. icon_mad.gif

I think they have forgotten the verse about the foolish things confounding the wise.

HQ and the WC love it because they know they can continue lying and deceiving to get our money and manipulate us because the people left must be stupid to have stuck with them for so long. It's like those tobacco executives. They don't smoke because they KNOW it's deadly, but they aren't going to admit to US and lose the money they get from us.

Besides that, to change something means they have to admit that they never worked it and just took his word for what he taught. I doubt half of them even know how to really research the scriptures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the said thread on Eve and lesbianism. I don't want to put that trash in my head. Not even for research purposes.

Just the knowledge that it came from LCM is a trigger. Again a very sick man with to much power and no spiritual accountability "speaking the truth." Makes me want to hit someone.(I wont)

LCM appears to be a sex addict and it seems that tranference of a deep seated problem played out through the Bible. For him I am sad and for others that swallowed this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imbus I believe that you are dead on the money...lCM was a sex *freak* everything he looked at physically, scripturally and spiritually was from this point of view....it tainted every *truth* that he ever presented.

No WONDER there was so little decency in him and under his regime...he COULDN`T really see the message of God ...the love...the kindness...decency...he just couldn`t see it...

I think that it was the same with vp as well...his *research* and pov were all tainted by his preconcieved notions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Eternal vagina fix" I have a therapist friend that worked at a sex addiction treatment center and I'm gonna ask for her take on this peice of work. I'll get back with her reply. LCM... "What female hurt you so bad that you would even come up with this SH@T? My god is that the stuff you would tell your own daughter?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
For those who haven't read Martindale's "eternal fix" teaching, here's the link.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/eternal-fix.htm" TARGET=_blank>The Eternal Vagina Fix</A><BR><BR>One sick puppy...

OMG this man is OBVIOUSLY Suffering from some MENTAL ILLNESS, Devil Spirits, or SOMETHING. This is not NORMAL nor LOGICAL!!

BTW folks, when ya'll write "the BOD" what are you referring to? Also what is IMAO?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One sick puppy is right. Martindale's complete obsession with his perverse sexual desires, colored everything he thought about. When you add to the mix, the idea that lcm knew about his wife's lesbian affair with Rosie...it all fits like a hand in a condom...oops, did I say condom?...another Freudian slip. :spy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One sick puppy is right. Martindale's complete obsession with his perverse sexual desires, colored everything he thought about. When you add to the mix, the idea that lcm knew about his wife's lesbian affair with Rosie...it all fits like a hand in a condom...oops, did I say condom?...another Freudian slip. :spy:

Do you have PROOF of this accusation, Groucho?

I was wondering myself..... I heard LCM's wife was living with Rosie, and I have seen photos of TWI President -- and well - for me to 'assume' would not be good.... I suppose a Rocket Scientist could put 2 n 2 together without blowing up the planet. :biglaugh:

Funny how I don't remember Rosie as part of TWI in the late 70s.

How could they be lesbian - they make such a big deal out of homosexuality being WRONG!!!

Is it just a big cover-up? I personally see nothing wrong with two women living under the same roof being 'room-mates'. How can you claim its more than that unless you have PROOF.

Now I'm not asking cause I'm a 'fan of either ladies'., I personally never MET either of them, but if a person is going to come out and make a BOLD Statement like that -- you'd want to be CERTAIN you have PROOF!! Couldn't you get 'sued' for false accusations like that? Curious....

Personally, I could give a rats patootie what either women do in their own space.

I think TWI has become an organization I could NOT support or be a part of now anyway.

There are, however, still some very precious people with wonderful personalities and big hearts for God still within its confines. I can name one -- Claudette Royale -- such a beautiful and very talented gal.

Just thought I'd ask. :redface:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well,

there's some things we DO know.

We do know that Roza-lie had a lesbian couple living in her house at one point.

(Check the photo archives off the main site.)

This isn't proof of anything, in and of itself.

We do know that Rozilla and Donna, when on trips,

would not get separate rooms, nor a quad with 2 beds or whatever-

they slept in the same bed.

This, in and of itself, would have meant nothing in Abe Lincoln's time.

Someone said they walked in on Donna and Rozycheeks just after

"the crime was blazing".

Then again, they MIGHT have been mistaken.

======

Given how contrived the "courtship" and marriage of lcm and Donna

was (check the vp/wonderland thread),

there's room for speculation.

I can come up with LOTS of possibilities, but I won't.

BTW folks, when ya'll write "the BOD" what are you referring to? Also what is IMAO?

The BOT was the Board of Trustees,

now known as the Board of Directors.

The BOD is the Board of Directors.

LMAO is internet slang-it's short for "laughing my aspirin off."

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...