Home
Latest images
Search
Register
Log inFound!! A Source of Lillys madness!!
3 posters
Page 1 of 1
Found!! A Source of Lillys madness!!
MoMo Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:27 pm
Found!! A Source of Lillys madness!! 
This is the source of Lillys deformed/degenerate racist Theology. She actually Posted their Link and menu. 
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/pubsubj.shtml
So who or what is WCG?
Herbert W Armstrong:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/cr.htm
Garner Ted ArmstrongDeceased founder of the Worldwide Church of God (originally the Radio Church of God), the Plain Truth magazine and the World Tomorrow radio and TV programs. During his lifetime, Armstrong was the self-proclaimed "Apostle" of the "only true church on earth today." Herbert Armstrong was father of television and radio evangelist Garner Ted Armstrong.
Garner Ted Armstrong:
Radio and television evangelist, son of Herbert W Armstrong. Garner Ted Armstrong was former chief spokesman on the media outreaches of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG). He founded the Church of God, International (CGI) after being expelled from the WCG in 1978 during a leadership power struggle in that organization. He later founded the Intercontinental Church of God (ICG) and the Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association after being expelled from the CGI in 1998 as a result of a highly-publicized sex scandal. Armstrong is the self-proclaimed "Ezekiel Watchman"... main prophetic spokesman for God on earth today. Died in fall 2003.
Their claims:
The identification of the descendants of Abraham is an important factor in understanding bible prophecy. The truth is that there are a great number of nations that are descended from Abraham and heir to the promises made by God to Abraham...The Tribal origin of these nations and also the identity of the English-Speaking people...
This could cover British Israelism or in America Christian Identity. (May not be the same.) The largest promoter of this nonsense is the mostly defunct churches of the Armstrong family churches and racist' hate groups. What separates them is their view of Jews. The basic idea is the white Americans and British are the lost Ten Tribes of Israel. The Jews/Israel of the Bible are my direct human ancestors (WASP) according to them. Think about that. The Bible tells us Abraham came from Ur, which is in present day Iraq. In other words, white Europeans are Semites related directly to the Arabs. Ishmael was the other son of Abraham and the traditional father of the Arabs. So the British are the half-brothers of the Saudis. When America and England invaded Iraq, we returned to our ancestral homeland. I don't think this is what they had in mind.
What to do about the Jews
Being blood-relations to Arabs is bad enough for the racists in their ranks, the idea of being related to Jews drives them even more insane. British Israelism as it started never claimed the Jews were not Israel, just the British (and later America) were one of the tribes of Israel.
But here it gets tricky. According to the Identity racists and some of the British Israelism types, the "Jews" we see today are imposters! They are converts from a 8th century Turkish tribe called the Khazars. (They fail to explain the fact the Jews from Muslim countries make up most of the population of Israel.) Jesus was wrong after all! His "brothers" the Jews really were not the children of Abraham! Any rational person would laugh at this nonsense. Now let's see how this relates to the real Israel, the Jews. What BI advocates is salvation by race, but how do they do away with and real Jews? They must prove the Jews are not the people of the Bible unless they want to claim Jews as blood brothers, totally unacceptable to those that are just racists. Thus they claim the European Jews are Turkish converts unrelated to the people of the Bible.....................
Apparently Lilly, the Queen of All Bullshit has drank their kool-aid and is now a Zombie!!
This is the source of Lillys deformed/degenerate racist Theology. She actually Posted their Link and menu.
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/pubsubj.shtml
So who or what is WCG?
Herbert W Armstrong:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/cr.htm
Garner Ted ArmstrongDeceased founder of the Worldwide Church of God (originally the Radio Church of God), the Plain Truth magazine and the World Tomorrow radio and TV programs. During his lifetime, Armstrong was the self-proclaimed "Apostle" of the "only true church on earth today." Herbert Armstrong was father of television and radio evangelist Garner Ted Armstrong.
Garner Ted Armstrong:
Radio and television evangelist, son of Herbert W Armstrong. Garner Ted Armstrong was former chief spokesman on the media outreaches of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG). He founded the Church of God, International (CGI) after being expelled from the WCG in 1978 during a leadership power struggle in that organization. He later founded the Intercontinental Church of God (ICG) and the Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association after being expelled from the CGI in 1998 as a result of a highly-publicized sex scandal. Armstrong is the self-proclaimed "Ezekiel Watchman"... main prophetic spokesman for God on earth today. Died in fall 2003.
Their claims:
The identification of the descendants of Abraham is an important factor in understanding bible prophecy. The truth is that there are a great number of nations that are descended from Abraham and heir to the promises made by God to Abraham...The Tribal origin of these nations and also the identity of the English-Speaking people...
This could cover British Israelism or in America Christian Identity. (May not be the same.) The largest promoter of this nonsense is the mostly defunct churches of the Armstrong family churches and racist' hate groups. What separates them is their view of Jews. The basic idea is the white Americans and British are the lost Ten Tribes of Israel. The Jews/Israel of the Bible are my direct human ancestors (WASP) according to them. Think about that. The Bible tells us Abraham came from Ur, which is in present day Iraq. In other words, white Europeans are Semites related directly to the Arabs. Ishmael was the other son of Abraham and the traditional father of the Arabs. So the British are the half-brothers of the Saudis. When America and England invaded Iraq, we returned to our ancestral homeland. I don't think this is what they had in mind.
What to do about the Jews
Being blood-relations to Arabs is bad enough for the racists in their ranks, the idea of being related to Jews drives them even more insane. British Israelism as it started never claimed the Jews were not Israel, just the British (and later America) were one of the tribes of Israel.
But here it gets tricky. According to the Identity racists and some of the British Israelism types, the "Jews" we see today are imposters! They are converts from a 8th century Turkish tribe called the Khazars. (They fail to explain the fact the Jews from Muslim countries make up most of the population of Israel.) Jesus was wrong after all! His "brothers" the Jews really were not the children of Abraham! Any rational person would laugh at this nonsense. Now let's see how this relates to the real Israel, the Jews. What BI advocates is salvation by race, but how do they do away with and real Jews? They must prove the Jews are not the people of the Bible unless they want to claim Jews as blood brothers, totally unacceptable to those that are just racists. Thus they claim the European Jews are Turkish converts unrelated to the people of the Bible.....................
Apparently Lilly, the Queen of All Bullshit has drank their kool-aid and is now a Zombie!!
MoMo- Posts : 1856
Join date : 2011-07-03
Location : outside the box, I pooped in it.
Re: Found!! A Source of Lillys madness!!
MoMo Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:41 pm
Who are Israelites in the New Testament use of the word? Does the New Testament make a difference between a "fleshly Jew" and a fleshly "Israelite"? In answer to these questions, the following parallels are submitted:1. John preached repentance to the Jews "of Judea"-Mark 1:4-5.
But John preached "repentance to all people of Israel" Acts 13:24.
2. Nicodemus was "a ruler of the Jews"-John 3:1.
But Nicodemus was "a master of Israel" John 3:10.
3. Paul the apostle was "a Jew of Tarsus"-Acts 21 :39.
But Paul the apostle was also "an Israelite"-Rom. 11:1.
4. Paul called the Jews his own nation-Gal. 1:13-14.
But Paul called Israel his nation-Acts 28:17-20.
5. Paul was a fleshly Jew "by nature"-Gal. 2:15.
But Paul was the same kind of an Israelite-2 Cor. 11:22.
In Radio Address, Aug. 28, 1943, Dr. John Matthews said that Paul was a Jew only in a religious sense. Well, he was a Benjamite-Ph. 3 :15-and the tribe of Benjamin remained with Judah, not the ten tribes, hence not Israel, according to these modern "Israelites." Moreover, Paul's use of the word "Jew" in Acts 21:39, when he declared himself a Jew, was in contrast with the word "Egyptian" in verse 38, in the same connection. He was the same kind of a Jew that the other fellow was of "an Egyptian." Paul says that he was a fleshly Jew, a Jew by nature, a Hebrew and a Benjamite, yet we are told that he was a Jew only in a religious sense, a religious Jew by nature, or just naturally a religious Jew! A natural religious Jew, or a religious natural Jew-which? Such twaddle makes us feel like saying "Pshaw!"
6. Paul called Peter a Jew like "other Jews" Gal. 2:11-15.
Peter called himself a Jew in contrast with "another nation"-Acts 10:28.
7. Jews "out of every nation" were dwelling at Jerusalem-Acts 2:5.
Peter referred to all of these Jews as "men of Israel"-Acts 2:22.
8. The old covenant was given to the Jews-Rom. 3:1.
But the old covenant was given to Israel-Rom. 9:4.
9. Paul called the Jews the circumcision-Rom. 3 :29-30.
He referred to Israel as the circumcision-Gal. 6:13-16.
10. The gospel was first preached to the Jews-Rom. 1:16.
The gospel was first preached to Israel-Acts 10:36.
11. At first the gospel was preached only to the Jews-Acts 11:
19 But at first the gospel was preached to Israel-Acts 10:36.
12. The Jews and Israel were identified as being the same in Acts 13.
Verse 6 refers to the "synagogue of the Jews" in which Paul preached. In verse 16 Paul called them "men of Israel" and in verse 17 "this people of Israel." In verse 24 he says that John "had first preached repentance to all the people of Israel," in verse 26 he called them the "stock of Abraham," and in verse 33 he referred to the Jews as "us their children"; then, showing that the Jews were the ones to whom he was speaking, verse 42 says "when the Jews came out of the synagogue." So Acts 13 adds up to this: Paul went into the "synagogue of the Jews"; talking to the Jews in their synagogue, he called them "men of Israel," "this people Israel," "all the people of Israel," "stock of Abraham," and "us their children"-and-then "the Jews came out of the synagogue"-but Anglo-Israelists say that the Jews were not Israel.
13. Matthew called Jesus the king of the Jews-Matt. 27:29-37.
Mark called Jesus the king of Israel-Mark 15:17, 32.
Let it be observed here that Pilate asked only one question. He did not ask if Christ was king of the Jews and then ask if he was king of Israel. The records of Matthew and Mark therefore show that they used the terms interchangeably; one said that he was king of the Jews, but the other said that he was king of Israel-but they meant the same thing. Therefore, Jews and Israel were understood by the gospel writers as being one and the same thing
14. Paul declares that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah-Heb.7:14
John declares that Jesus was Lion of the tribe of Judah Rev 5:5
If Paul had been of the tribe of Judah, would Anglo-Israelists admit that he was a Jew? Yes. Then, since Jesus Christ was of the tribe of Judah, what keeps him from being a Jew? Yet the Anglo-Israelists insist that neither Christ nor any of the apostles of Christ were Jews. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah; Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, which merged with Judah and continued under the name of Judah. This fact is clearly stated in 1 Kings 12:2023. So Paul the Benjamite, and Jesus the Judahitc but neither of them was a Jew according to an Anglo-Israelite.
16. Finally-in his conversation with the Samaritan woman. Jesus said that he was a Jew John 4:9-22.
First, the woman of Samaria said to Jesus: "How is it that thou being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria ? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans." Here Jesus permitted this woman to call him a Jew, and John the apostle wrote it down that way in the gospel record. Then m verse 22, Jesus said to the woman, "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." Thus Jesus accepted the name Jew when the woman called hind one, and then in referring to "ye" and "we" when replying to her he called himself one.
As the matter stands, Paul the Hebrew, the Benjamite, the Israelite, was a Jew. Jesus who "sprang out of Judah," and who was the "Lion of the tribe of Judah," was a Jew. Paul said "we Jews"-Gal. 2:15-and Jesus said "we Jews" John 4 22-so Jesus and Paul were Jews if their own words count any thing or have any meaning. The baseless assertions of Anglo-Israelists to the contrary, notwithstanding.
Seventh: They must prove that God chose the ten tribes over Judah. In Psa. 78:67-68 David says very specifically that God "refused the tabernacle of Joseph" and "chose not the tribe of Ephraim" but "chose the tribe of Judah." (WWW.BIBLE.CA) To quote,
Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim: But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved.
When did God change his mind and elect the British? If the Bible is so overwhelming in disproving this nonsense, how can they still believe it? They claim the Bible is a fraud! According to them all the bibles everyone uses today are based on frauds printed by the Rothchilds in the 1700s! One just can't make this stuff up. This is the point when fundamentalism is mental illness.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/cr.htm
But John preached "repentance to all people of Israel" Acts 13:24.
2. Nicodemus was "a ruler of the Jews"-John 3:1.
But Nicodemus was "a master of Israel" John 3:10.
3. Paul the apostle was "a Jew of Tarsus"-Acts 21 :39.
But Paul the apostle was also "an Israelite"-Rom. 11:1.
4. Paul called the Jews his own nation-Gal. 1:13-14.
But Paul called Israel his nation-Acts 28:17-20.
5. Paul was a fleshly Jew "by nature"-Gal. 2:15.
But Paul was the same kind of an Israelite-2 Cor. 11:22.
In Radio Address, Aug. 28, 1943, Dr. John Matthews said that Paul was a Jew only in a religious sense. Well, he was a Benjamite-Ph. 3 :15-and the tribe of Benjamin remained with Judah, not the ten tribes, hence not Israel, according to these modern "Israelites." Moreover, Paul's use of the word "Jew" in Acts 21:39, when he declared himself a Jew, was in contrast with the word "Egyptian" in verse 38, in the same connection. He was the same kind of a Jew that the other fellow was of "an Egyptian." Paul says that he was a fleshly Jew, a Jew by nature, a Hebrew and a Benjamite, yet we are told that he was a Jew only in a religious sense, a religious Jew by nature, or just naturally a religious Jew! A natural religious Jew, or a religious natural Jew-which? Such twaddle makes us feel like saying "Pshaw!"
6. Paul called Peter a Jew like "other Jews" Gal. 2:11-15.
Peter called himself a Jew in contrast with "another nation"-Acts 10:28.
7. Jews "out of every nation" were dwelling at Jerusalem-Acts 2:5.
Peter referred to all of these Jews as "men of Israel"-Acts 2:22.
8. The old covenant was given to the Jews-Rom. 3:1.
But the old covenant was given to Israel-Rom. 9:4.
9. Paul called the Jews the circumcision-Rom. 3 :29-30.
He referred to Israel as the circumcision-Gal. 6:13-16.
10. The gospel was first preached to the Jews-Rom. 1:16.
The gospel was first preached to Israel-Acts 10:36.
11. At first the gospel was preached only to the Jews-Acts 11:
19 But at first the gospel was preached to Israel-Acts 10:36.
12. The Jews and Israel were identified as being the same in Acts 13.
Verse 6 refers to the "synagogue of the Jews" in which Paul preached. In verse 16 Paul called them "men of Israel" and in verse 17 "this people of Israel." In verse 24 he says that John "had first preached repentance to all the people of Israel," in verse 26 he called them the "stock of Abraham," and in verse 33 he referred to the Jews as "us their children"; then, showing that the Jews were the ones to whom he was speaking, verse 42 says "when the Jews came out of the synagogue." So Acts 13 adds up to this: Paul went into the "synagogue of the Jews"; talking to the Jews in their synagogue, he called them "men of Israel," "this people Israel," "all the people of Israel," "stock of Abraham," and "us their children"-and-then "the Jews came out of the synagogue"-but Anglo-Israelists say that the Jews were not Israel.
13. Matthew called Jesus the king of the Jews-Matt. 27:29-37.
Mark called Jesus the king of Israel-Mark 15:17, 32.
Let it be observed here that Pilate asked only one question. He did not ask if Christ was king of the Jews and then ask if he was king of Israel. The records of Matthew and Mark therefore show that they used the terms interchangeably; one said that he was king of the Jews, but the other said that he was king of Israel-but they meant the same thing. Therefore, Jews and Israel were understood by the gospel writers as being one and the same thing
14. Paul declares that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah-Heb.7:14
John declares that Jesus was Lion of the tribe of Judah Rev 5:5
If Paul had been of the tribe of Judah, would Anglo-Israelists admit that he was a Jew? Yes. Then, since Jesus Christ was of the tribe of Judah, what keeps him from being a Jew? Yet the Anglo-Israelists insist that neither Christ nor any of the apostles of Christ were Jews. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah; Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, which merged with Judah and continued under the name of Judah. This fact is clearly stated in 1 Kings 12:2023. So Paul the Benjamite, and Jesus the Judahitc but neither of them was a Jew according to an Anglo-Israelite.
16. Finally-in his conversation with the Samaritan woman. Jesus said that he was a Jew John 4:9-22.
First, the woman of Samaria said to Jesus: "How is it that thou being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria ? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans." Here Jesus permitted this woman to call him a Jew, and John the apostle wrote it down that way in the gospel record. Then m verse 22, Jesus said to the woman, "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." Thus Jesus accepted the name Jew when the woman called hind one, and then in referring to "ye" and "we" when replying to her he called himself one.
As the matter stands, Paul the Hebrew, the Benjamite, the Israelite, was a Jew. Jesus who "sprang out of Judah," and who was the "Lion of the tribe of Judah," was a Jew. Paul said "we Jews"-Gal. 2:15-and Jesus said "we Jews" John 4 22-so Jesus and Paul were Jews if their own words count any thing or have any meaning. The baseless assertions of Anglo-Israelists to the contrary, notwithstanding.
Seventh: They must prove that God chose the ten tribes over Judah. In Psa. 78:67-68 David says very specifically that God "refused the tabernacle of Joseph" and "chose not the tribe of Ephraim" but "chose the tribe of Judah." (WWW.BIBLE.CA) To quote,
Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim: But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved.
When did God change his mind and elect the British? If the Bible is so overwhelming in disproving this nonsense, how can they still believe it? They claim the Bible is a fraud! According to them all the bibles everyone uses today are based on frauds printed by the Rothchilds in the 1700s! One just can't make this stuff up. This is the point when fundamentalism is mental illness.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/cr.htm
MoMo- Posts : 1856
Join date : 2011-07-03
Location : outside the box, I pooped in it.
Lilly & Rodins Fatal Flaw in Exegesis
MoMo Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:48 pm
Biblical Hermeneutics and Inductive Study
Lilly & Rodins Fatal Flaw in Exegesis
http://www.xenos.org/classes/principles/cpu3_hermeneutics.htm
Introduction
The consensus in the world today is that the average person can't accurately interpret what the Bible says. Do the following statements sound familiar to you?:
"We should rely on the clergy/experts to tell us what the Bible means."
This statement reflects the assumption that the meaning of scripture is beyond the reach of the average person.
"People have always disagreed about the meaning of the Bible (different denominations)."
People have disagreed, and sometimes their disagreements have been brutal. So is the best posture tolerance of hermeneutical diversity? To what extent? Are all meanings valid?
"The Bible has been used to justify everything you can think of. You can make it mean anything you want it to mean."
We can show clear historical instances in which people have interpreted the Bible through their own cultural values, often without even being aware of it. EXAMPLES: slavery (using Old Testament permission vs. Philemon & New Testament silence); women (patriarchal views vs. Bible); capitalism as a biblically sanctioned economic system; Christian psychology self-help books proof-texting secular theories (e.g., Self-Esteem).
Can we become aware of our own cultural values sufficiently to avoid this, or should such historical abuse lead us to cynicism about the possibility of "objective interpretation?"
"That's just your interpretation." "It's impossible to determine the original author's meaning, rather, as we read it, we create our own meaning for the text."
These statements reflect the relativism and postmodernism that has permeated our whole culture.
The challenge:
You may realize these are all secular, non-Christian objections. But what about the following scenarios?
In a home Bible study when someone says "What this passage means to me is . . ." And then someone else says, "That's great. But I got a different meaning (and his meaning is contradictory)." And everyone concludes by saying "Praise God for all the great insight we're getting!" Aren't we violating the law of non-contradiction by accepting this resolution?'
What about this story: "Almost twenty years ago I rode in a car with a fellow believer who relayed to me what the Lord had 'told' him that morning in his quiet time. He had been reading the KJV of Matthew; and I perceived that not only had he misunderstood the archaic English, but also that the KJV at that place had unwittingly misrepresented the Greek text. I gently suggested there might be another way to understand the passage and summarized what I thought the passage was saying. The brother dismissed my view as impossible on the grounds that the Holy Spirit, who does not lie, had told him the truth on this matter. Being young and bold, I pressed on with my explanation of grammar, context, and translation, but was brushed off by a reference to 1 Cor. 2:10b-15: spiritual things must be spiritually discerned-which left little doubt about my status. Genuinely intrigued, I asked this brother what he would say if I put forward my interpretation, not on the basis of grammar and text, but on the basis that the Lord himself had given me the interpretation I was advancing. He was silent a long time, and then concluded, 'I guess that would mean the Spirit says the Bible means different things to different people.'" D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Co., 1984) p. 13.
If we accept this, aren't we accepting relativism in the name of spiritual experience?
Definition of Hermeneutics: The science/art of interpreting texts.
2 Tim 2:15* Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.
"handling accurately" implies there is a proper interpretation
"be diligent" implies there are obstacles and difficulties involved
"ashamed" implies good interpretation is achievable
These issues highlight the importance of two closely related areas of bibliology: hermeneutics and perspicuity.......................
Lilly & Rodins Fatal Flaw in Exegesis
http://www.xenos.org/classes/principles/cpu3_hermeneutics.htm
Introduction
The consensus in the world today is that the average person can't accurately interpret what the Bible says. Do the following statements sound familiar to you?:
"We should rely on the clergy/experts to tell us what the Bible means."
This statement reflects the assumption that the meaning of scripture is beyond the reach of the average person.
"People have always disagreed about the meaning of the Bible (different denominations)."
People have disagreed, and sometimes their disagreements have been brutal. So is the best posture tolerance of hermeneutical diversity? To what extent? Are all meanings valid?
"The Bible has been used to justify everything you can think of. You can make it mean anything you want it to mean."
We can show clear historical instances in which people have interpreted the Bible through their own cultural values, often without even being aware of it. EXAMPLES: slavery (using Old Testament permission vs. Philemon & New Testament silence); women (patriarchal views vs. Bible); capitalism as a biblically sanctioned economic system; Christian psychology self-help books proof-texting secular theories (e.g., Self-Esteem).
Can we become aware of our own cultural values sufficiently to avoid this, or should such historical abuse lead us to cynicism about the possibility of "objective interpretation?"
"That's just your interpretation." "It's impossible to determine the original author's meaning, rather, as we read it, we create our own meaning for the text."
These statements reflect the relativism and postmodernism that has permeated our whole culture.
The challenge:
You may realize these are all secular, non-Christian objections. But what about the following scenarios?
In a home Bible study when someone says "What this passage means to me is . . ." And then someone else says, "That's great. But I got a different meaning (and his meaning is contradictory)." And everyone concludes by saying "Praise God for all the great insight we're getting!" Aren't we violating the law of non-contradiction by accepting this resolution?'
What about this story: "Almost twenty years ago I rode in a car with a fellow believer who relayed to me what the Lord had 'told' him that morning in his quiet time. He had been reading the KJV of Matthew; and I perceived that not only had he misunderstood the archaic English, but also that the KJV at that place had unwittingly misrepresented the Greek text. I gently suggested there might be another way to understand the passage and summarized what I thought the passage was saying. The brother dismissed my view as impossible on the grounds that the Holy Spirit, who does not lie, had told him the truth on this matter. Being young and bold, I pressed on with my explanation of grammar, context, and translation, but was brushed off by a reference to 1 Cor. 2:10b-15: spiritual things must be spiritually discerned-which left little doubt about my status. Genuinely intrigued, I asked this brother what he would say if I put forward my interpretation, not on the basis of grammar and text, but on the basis that the Lord himself had given me the interpretation I was advancing. He was silent a long time, and then concluded, 'I guess that would mean the Spirit says the Bible means different things to different people.'" D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Co., 1984) p. 13.
If we accept this, aren't we accepting relativism in the name of spiritual experience?
Definition of Hermeneutics: The science/art of interpreting texts.
2 Tim 2:15* Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.
"handling accurately" implies there is a proper interpretation
"be diligent" implies there are obstacles and difficulties involved
"ashamed" implies good interpretation is achievable
These issues highlight the importance of two closely related areas of bibliology: hermeneutics and perspicuity.......................
MoMo- Posts : 1856
Join date : 2011-07-03
Location : outside the box, I pooped in it.
Re: Found!! A Source of Lillys madness!!
MoMo Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Perspicuity
Definition: Perspicuity means "essential clarity." Biblical perspicuity means that the Bible is understandable with regard to its main message.
Everything in the Bible is not equally clear (2 Pet. 3:15,16), but the main message is sufficiently clear for us to be saved and accomplish God's purpose. The biblical authors assumed their readers could understand their main message.
What do these authors assume about the perspicuity of the Bible?
Jn. 20:31 - John thinks that his book is understandable enough that the average reader of his day could get saved by reading it (see also 1 Jn. 5:13).
2 Tim. 3:14,15 - Paul says the main message of scripture is understandable enough for children to get saved by it.
1 Jn. 5:13 - John expected his audience to be able to understand his message well enough to have assurance of salvation.
"The Bible is basically clear and lucid. It is simple enough for any literate person to understand its basic message. This is not to say that all parts of the Bible are equally clear or that there are no difficult passages or sections to be found in it. Laymen unskilled in the ancient languages and the fine points of exegesis may have difficulty with parts of scripture, but the essential content is clear enough to be understood easily." [R. C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977), p 15.]
This belief in perspicuity was a major element in Reformation thinking. Luther opposed the Roman Catholic teaching that only the clergy was qualified to interpret the Bible.
Responses to attacks on Biblical perspicuity
E.G. - The Bible is so complicated. Who could understand it?
PRESUPPOSITIONAL DEFENSE: Doesn't it make sense that if a loving God has recorded a vital message for humans, he would communicate it in such a way that we can understand that message? Only a cruel, sadistic God would purposefully record his message in such an obscure way that we could not be reasonably certain we understand it.
E.G. - "We're so far in time and culture from the original author, therefore we could never understand what he intended."
POSTMODERN CRITICS CONTRADICT THEMSELVES: Those who resort to radical skepticism about the clarity of the Bible expect me to understand their objection! I often reply by saying, "I can't understand what you mean . . . " QUALIFICATION: There is more distance between us and the biblical text, but to say it is unbridgeable is a faith assertion . . .
E.G. - "If it's so easy to interpret, why are there so many denominations?"
HISTORICAL AGREEMENT ABOUT THE BIBLE'S MAIN MESSAGE: Wherever the Bible has been the final authority, Christians have agreed on the main message. Their disagreements with each other have been over issues which, while often important, are not crucial. This is why documents like the Apostles Creed can be formulated and agreed on by Christians from many different denominations down through the centuries. This is why it is possible for us to provide you with a concise "Statement of Faith" which agrees with historic Christianity.
E.G. - "Then…why do Christian groups disagree on essential doctrines?"
But clearly, "Christian" groups have also disagreed in their interpretation of even essential doctrines (CATHOLICS). How can this be explained? The answer to this question is surprisingly simple: Because another authority has replaced God's Word. They have made either official or unofficial additions to the canon. The Bible is then ignored and/or twisted to support that new authority's doctrines. There are hundreds of examples of this:
RELIGIOUS TRADITION: Rabbinic "oral law" (Mk. 7:8,9)
NEW "SCRIPTURES": Book of Mormon; Apocrypha (on purgatory)
"KEYS" TO BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION: Christian Science's Key To Science & Health; Rev. Moon's Divine Principle; Roman Catholic Papal Infallibility & "Canon Law" (Catechism quote??)
SKEWED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE: Jehovah's Witness's Watchtower Version (Jn. 1:1); Mormon Bible
ALIEN PRESUPPOSITIONS: Naturalism in Thomas Jefferson's Revised Deist Bible; Liberal Theology; Pantheistic Avatars (manifestations of the divine light); Postmodern Thought
So the issue here is actually not one of differing interpretations at all, or that the Bible is unclear on essential matters, but of differing spiritual authorities.
God has made his main message clear to us in three ways:
By using language that is sufficiently clear. If we approach the Bible like we would approach any other piece of literature, we find that its main message is indeed understandable.
Consider this statement: "GO TO THE KROGER STORE AND BUY 10 LBS. OF POTATOES." Now we might reasonably ask which Kroger store and which kind of potatoes. If we were unfamiliar with American culture, we might even ask what a potato is and how much a pound is. But would it ever be acceptable to interpret this statement to mean: "GO TO THE HIMALAYAN MOUNTAINS AND MEDITATE ON YOUR NAVEL?" Would it be correct to say no one can be confident he understands this statement?
Now consider this statement: "HE WHO BELIEVES IN THE SON HAS ETERNAL LIFE; BUT HE WHO DOES NOT OBEY THE SON SHALL NOT SEE LIFE, BUT THE WRATH OF GOD ABIDES ON HIM." (Jn. 3:36) We might reasonably ask who the Son is, what "believe" means, or if "believe" and "obey" are being used synonymously. But would it ever be acceptable to interpret this statement to mean: "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT RELIGION YOU BELIEVE BECAUSE EVERYONE GOES TO HEAVEN?" Would it be correct to say that no one can be confident he understands this statement?
"When it comes to the central core of the Christian faith . . . the biblical evidence is overwhelming. The deity of Christ, the triune nature of God, the creation of the world by God, the sinfulness of all humanity, salvation by grace through faith, the resurrection of the dead—these and many other such matters are clearly taught in scripture." [James Sire, Scripture Twisting (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1980), pp. 12,13.]
"The main things are the plain things."
By repeating the main message. If you want your young children to understand something important, you say it to them several times and in different ways. There are many doctrines which are repeated and stated in many ways for clarity sake (How we get his acceptance--different atonement words to different audiences; our dilemma with God is spiritual and moral; that God is a personal God; etc.).
By giving the Holy Spirit to help us understand and apply his Word. God's love for us is so deep that he gets supernaturally involved to teach us the meaning of his Word and how we should respond to it. Theologians call this the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit.
1 Cor. 2:12 - As we come to the Bible humbly asking for God's help in understanding his Word so that we may obey it (Jn. 7:17), he promises through his Spirit to illuminate its meaning and importance for our lives.
2 Tim. 2:7* - "7 Consider what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything." Nevertheless, we have a part to play in interpreting God's Word (vs. 7: "consider ["exercise the mind"] what I say").
Eph. 1:16-18ff ...do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers; 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened...
Paul opens his letters to the Philippians and Colossians in a similar way.
This brings us to the subject of how to interpret... .......................
Definition: Perspicuity means "essential clarity." Biblical perspicuity means that the Bible is understandable with regard to its main message.
Everything in the Bible is not equally clear (2 Pet. 3:15,16), but the main message is sufficiently clear for us to be saved and accomplish God's purpose. The biblical authors assumed their readers could understand their main message.
What do these authors assume about the perspicuity of the Bible?
Jn. 20:31 - John thinks that his book is understandable enough that the average reader of his day could get saved by reading it (see also 1 Jn. 5:13).
2 Tim. 3:14,15 - Paul says the main message of scripture is understandable enough for children to get saved by it.
1 Jn. 5:13 - John expected his audience to be able to understand his message well enough to have assurance of salvation.
"The Bible is basically clear and lucid. It is simple enough for any literate person to understand its basic message. This is not to say that all parts of the Bible are equally clear or that there are no difficult passages or sections to be found in it. Laymen unskilled in the ancient languages and the fine points of exegesis may have difficulty with parts of scripture, but the essential content is clear enough to be understood easily." [R. C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977), p 15.]
This belief in perspicuity was a major element in Reformation thinking. Luther opposed the Roman Catholic teaching that only the clergy was qualified to interpret the Bible.
Responses to attacks on Biblical perspicuity
E.G. - The Bible is so complicated. Who could understand it?
PRESUPPOSITIONAL DEFENSE: Doesn't it make sense that if a loving God has recorded a vital message for humans, he would communicate it in such a way that we can understand that message? Only a cruel, sadistic God would purposefully record his message in such an obscure way that we could not be reasonably certain we understand it.
E.G. - "We're so far in time and culture from the original author, therefore we could never understand what he intended."
POSTMODERN CRITICS CONTRADICT THEMSELVES: Those who resort to radical skepticism about the clarity of the Bible expect me to understand their objection! I often reply by saying, "I can't understand what you mean . . . " QUALIFICATION: There is more distance between us and the biblical text, but to say it is unbridgeable is a faith assertion . . .
E.G. - "If it's so easy to interpret, why are there so many denominations?"
HISTORICAL AGREEMENT ABOUT THE BIBLE'S MAIN MESSAGE: Wherever the Bible has been the final authority, Christians have agreed on the main message. Their disagreements with each other have been over issues which, while often important, are not crucial. This is why documents like the Apostles Creed can be formulated and agreed on by Christians from many different denominations down through the centuries. This is why it is possible for us to provide you with a concise "Statement of Faith" which agrees with historic Christianity.
E.G. - "Then…why do Christian groups disagree on essential doctrines?"
But clearly, "Christian" groups have also disagreed in their interpretation of even essential doctrines (CATHOLICS). How can this be explained? The answer to this question is surprisingly simple: Because another authority has replaced God's Word. They have made either official or unofficial additions to the canon. The Bible is then ignored and/or twisted to support that new authority's doctrines. There are hundreds of examples of this:
RELIGIOUS TRADITION: Rabbinic "oral law" (Mk. 7:8,9)
NEW "SCRIPTURES": Book of Mormon; Apocrypha (on purgatory)
"KEYS" TO BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION: Christian Science's Key To Science & Health; Rev. Moon's Divine Principle; Roman Catholic Papal Infallibility & "Canon Law" (Catechism quote??)
SKEWED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE: Jehovah's Witness's Watchtower Version (Jn. 1:1); Mormon Bible
ALIEN PRESUPPOSITIONS: Naturalism in Thomas Jefferson's Revised Deist Bible; Liberal Theology; Pantheistic Avatars (manifestations of the divine light); Postmodern Thought
So the issue here is actually not one of differing interpretations at all, or that the Bible is unclear on essential matters, but of differing spiritual authorities.
God has made his main message clear to us in three ways:
By using language that is sufficiently clear. If we approach the Bible like we would approach any other piece of literature, we find that its main message is indeed understandable.
Consider this statement: "GO TO THE KROGER STORE AND BUY 10 LBS. OF POTATOES." Now we might reasonably ask which Kroger store and which kind of potatoes. If we were unfamiliar with American culture, we might even ask what a potato is and how much a pound is. But would it ever be acceptable to interpret this statement to mean: "GO TO THE HIMALAYAN MOUNTAINS AND MEDITATE ON YOUR NAVEL?" Would it be correct to say no one can be confident he understands this statement?
Now consider this statement: "HE WHO BELIEVES IN THE SON HAS ETERNAL LIFE; BUT HE WHO DOES NOT OBEY THE SON SHALL NOT SEE LIFE, BUT THE WRATH OF GOD ABIDES ON HIM." (Jn. 3:36) We might reasonably ask who the Son is, what "believe" means, or if "believe" and "obey" are being used synonymously. But would it ever be acceptable to interpret this statement to mean: "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT RELIGION YOU BELIEVE BECAUSE EVERYONE GOES TO HEAVEN?" Would it be correct to say that no one can be confident he understands this statement?
"When it comes to the central core of the Christian faith . . . the biblical evidence is overwhelming. The deity of Christ, the triune nature of God, the creation of the world by God, the sinfulness of all humanity, salvation by grace through faith, the resurrection of the dead—these and many other such matters are clearly taught in scripture." [James Sire, Scripture Twisting (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1980), pp. 12,13.]
"The main things are the plain things."
By repeating the main message. If you want your young children to understand something important, you say it to them several times and in different ways. There are many doctrines which are repeated and stated in many ways for clarity sake (How we get his acceptance--different atonement words to different audiences; our dilemma with God is spiritual and moral; that God is a personal God; etc.).
By giving the Holy Spirit to help us understand and apply his Word. God's love for us is so deep that he gets supernaturally involved to teach us the meaning of his Word and how we should respond to it. Theologians call this the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit.
1 Cor. 2:12 - As we come to the Bible humbly asking for God's help in understanding his Word so that we may obey it (Jn. 7:17), he promises through his Spirit to illuminate its meaning and importance for our lives.
2 Tim. 2:7* - "7 Consider what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything." Nevertheless, we have a part to play in interpreting God's Word (vs. 7: "consider ["exercise the mind"] what I say").
Eph. 1:16-18ff ...do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers; 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened...
Paul opens his letters to the Philippians and Colossians in a similar way.
This brings us to the subject of how to interpret... .......................
MoMo- Posts : 1856
Join date : 2011-07-03
Location : outside the box, I pooped in it.
Re: Found!! A Source of Lillys madness!!
MoMo Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:52 pm
Grammatico-Historical Hermeneutics
Definition: A method of interpretation that takes into account common rules of grammar and syntax and the author's historical context.
The goal of biblical hermeneutics is to ascertain as closely as possible the meaning intended by the original author. We want the interpreter to remain under the authority of the text instead of imposing his or her meaning on the text. If we can accomplish this, we can hear God speak to us through his inspired author! A goal worth pursuing.
While there may be many valid applications of a text, there is only one valid interpretation. An interpretation is the author's intended meaning; an application is how the reader should respond.
Exegesis: Extracting the meaning from the text
Lillys Fatal Flaw:
Eisogesis: Projection of reader bias onto the text.
Mark 12:31 "Love your neighbor as yourself." Does this mean that we cannot venture into loving others until we first have a healthy love for ourselves? This is a common misinterpretation. Or does Christ presume we already love ourselves, even selfishly, and therefore we need to step out NOW and serve others? The latter most certainly squares with the rest of scripture. The applications for the latter may be more than we like to think about!
The task of the interpreter is to ascertain that intended meaning if possible, using the following tools.
Three Principles that should guide our interpretation
1. INTERPRET GRAMMATICALLY: Take the normal meaning of the words, phrases and sentences unless it is impossible to do so. The interpretation must correspond to the words and grammar in the text in a reasonable way. Otherwise, there is no objective control over the interpreter (EXAMPLES: see "Hermeneutical Schools"). Most of the Bible can be interpreted by simply taking the language (either in the original or in translation) in the usual way. In other words, "If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense."
Qualifications:
Allow for figures of speech. A plain sense reading should not be confused with a literalistic interpretation.
Psa. 91:4 He will cover you with His pinions, And under His wings you may seek refuge; His faithfulness is a shield and bulwark.
Lk. 22:19 - " . . . this is my body . . . " Where was Jesus' body when he said this? See his other metaphors (door; bread; etc.).
Col. 1:15 - " . . . the first-born of all creation . . . " The Old Testament sometimes uses this term to refer to "heir" (Ex. 4:22; Jer. 31:9). Heb. 1:6,7 uses it to refer to Jesus as the object of angelic worship.
Allow for symbolism. If a passage is symbolic or contains symbols, this should be indicated in the text, either by textual cues or because symbolism is required in order to make sense of the text. The Bible itself explains most symbols.
Rev. 1:9-20 - The symbols are identified as such ("like") and explained. Most of biblical symbols are handled this way. Many other symbols in Revelation have been previously explained in Daniel.
2. INTERPRET HISTORICALLY: Historical interpretation means that we take into account the historical background of the author and the recipients. We are not interested at first in the question, "What does it mean to me?" but rather, "What did it mean to the original audience?" Use Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, commentaries, or other sources to learn more about customs, money, geography, etc. We need to ascertain the original intent before we apply any biblical teaching.
Gen. 15:7-21 - "Cutting a covenant" solemnized a contract between two parties. It was normally bilateral (both parties walked through), but only God goes through >> GRACE COVENANT.
1 Cor. 11:4-6 - Shorn hair was typical of Aphrodite priestess-prostitutes; shaven heads were typical of convicted adulteresses (vs. 5).
The parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10), 300 Denarii (John 12:3-5), 50,000 Drachma (Acts 19:19).
Pharisees' teaching on the relationship between illness and sin (Mk. 2)
3. INTERPRET CRITICALLY: Your interpretation must make rational sense. The entire Bible is the product of one author (God) at the same time that it is the product of many authors. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect a consistent message throughout the Bible. Some of these rules are logical implications of a belief in the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture.
FIVE PRACTICAL RULES - These rules will help you to arrive at a critically sound interpretation.
a. Interpret in light of the context of the passage (which author? book? passage?). Never view a passage in isolation from its surroundings. The context should be considered the most important kind of evidence in the interpretation of a passage. Only when no critically feasible interpretation can be found can we claim that a break in context was intended.
Mt. 16:28 - Referring to the transfiguration (in context of passage) "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
2 Peter 1:16- confirms that Peter was an eye witness of Christ's "majesty."
Jas. 1:6-8 - The "doubter" is not simply any Christian who has occasional doubts. He is the "double-minded man," whom James further describes in 4:8 (in context of book) as Christians who posture themselves as loving God but really love the world.
b. Interpret in light of progressive revelation
(Heb. 1:1,2). God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
Heb 8:13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
While God's purpose for man has never changed, his strategy in accomplishing that purpose has changed. He has dealt with man under different "covenants," or "dispensations." Therefore, it is important to ask, "Under which program was this written?" Primary application of the passage will be to the people operating under that program, but not necessarily to others. There may be secondary applications for other programs based on principles which have universal application.
Ex. 20:8-10 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you."
Animal sacrifices, dietary laws, Sabbaths, holy days, festivals, priests and liturgy have all been fulfilled in Christ and are thus obsolete (compare with Col. 2:16,17 "Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." and Heb.
.
Theocracy was commanded in the Old Testament, but secular government is affirmed in the New Testament (Rom. 13:1-7; Mt. 22:21).
Mal. 3:7-12 - The practice of tithes should be seen in context of the Old Testament (see Num. 18:21-24; Deut. 14:22-29)
c. Interpret scripture in harmony with other scripture. Since the Bible is inspired by God, it does not contradict itself. Therefore, never interpret scripture in such a way that it clearly contradicts other scriptures. If a passage can be legitimately interpreted in more than one way, choose the interpretation that doesn't contradict other scriptures.
Go back to the initial example of Mark 12:31- "Love your neighbor as yourself." We must interpret this passage in harmony with Jesus' other teachings.
Acts 2:38 could be referring to either baptismal regeneration, or simply adding baptism as a desirable adjunct to the minimum requirement for salvation (i.e., faith). In view of the clear teaching on salvation by grace through faith alone, the latter interpretation is preferable.
d. Interpret the unclear in light of the clear. Every major, essential truth is taught clearly and many times. Never build a doctrine on an unclear passage.
Lk. 16:9 "And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the mammon of unrighteousness; that when it fails, they may receive you into the eternal dwellings." . . . is used by Roman Catholics to support indulgences.
1 Cor. 15:29 "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?" . . . mentions an obscure, unknown practice used in Corinth. Paul doesn't affirm this practice; he just asks why they're doing it if they don't believe in resurrection. Today, the Mormon church uses this passage to elevate dead ancestors to a higher status in the afterlife.
e. Interpret in light of the literary style. The literary style (genre) affects our understanding of the passage. For example, Proverbs should not be interpreted axiomatically like didactic theological statements in the gospels and epistles. It contains many general maxims, but not all proverbs are absolute promises.
Proverbs 22:6 - Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.
We realize, not every child will go right, but most will.
Proverbs 15:1 - A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
Obviously, not every gentle word will turn away wrath, but in most cases it works.
Contrast these to the didactic teaching of Rom. 8:1.
Which of these rules implies belief in verbal plenary inspiration?
Definition: A method of interpretation that takes into account common rules of grammar and syntax and the author's historical context.
The goal of biblical hermeneutics is to ascertain as closely as possible the meaning intended by the original author. We want the interpreter to remain under the authority of the text instead of imposing his or her meaning on the text. If we can accomplish this, we can hear God speak to us through his inspired author! A goal worth pursuing.
While there may be many valid applications of a text, there is only one valid interpretation. An interpretation is the author's intended meaning; an application is how the reader should respond.
Exegesis: Extracting the meaning from the text
Lillys Fatal Flaw:
Eisogesis: Projection of reader bias onto the text.
Mark 12:31 "Love your neighbor as yourself." Does this mean that we cannot venture into loving others until we first have a healthy love for ourselves? This is a common misinterpretation. Or does Christ presume we already love ourselves, even selfishly, and therefore we need to step out NOW and serve others? The latter most certainly squares with the rest of scripture. The applications for the latter may be more than we like to think about!
The task of the interpreter is to ascertain that intended meaning if possible, using the following tools.
Three Principles that should guide our interpretation
1. INTERPRET GRAMMATICALLY: Take the normal meaning of the words, phrases and sentences unless it is impossible to do so. The interpretation must correspond to the words and grammar in the text in a reasonable way. Otherwise, there is no objective control over the interpreter (EXAMPLES: see "Hermeneutical Schools"). Most of the Bible can be interpreted by simply taking the language (either in the original or in translation) in the usual way. In other words, "If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense."
Qualifications:
Allow for figures of speech. A plain sense reading should not be confused with a literalistic interpretation.
Psa. 91:4 He will cover you with His pinions, And under His wings you may seek refuge; His faithfulness is a shield and bulwark.
Lk. 22:19 - " . . . this is my body . . . " Where was Jesus' body when he said this? See his other metaphors (door; bread; etc.).
Col. 1:15 - " . . . the first-born of all creation . . . " The Old Testament sometimes uses this term to refer to "heir" (Ex. 4:22; Jer. 31:9). Heb. 1:6,7 uses it to refer to Jesus as the object of angelic worship.
Allow for symbolism. If a passage is symbolic or contains symbols, this should be indicated in the text, either by textual cues or because symbolism is required in order to make sense of the text. The Bible itself explains most symbols.
Rev. 1:9-20 - The symbols are identified as such ("like") and explained. Most of biblical symbols are handled this way. Many other symbols in Revelation have been previously explained in Daniel.
2. INTERPRET HISTORICALLY: Historical interpretation means that we take into account the historical background of the author and the recipients. We are not interested at first in the question, "What does it mean to me?" but rather, "What did it mean to the original audience?" Use Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, commentaries, or other sources to learn more about customs, money, geography, etc. We need to ascertain the original intent before we apply any biblical teaching.
Gen. 15:7-21 - "Cutting a covenant" solemnized a contract between two parties. It was normally bilateral (both parties walked through), but only God goes through >> GRACE COVENANT.
1 Cor. 11:4-6 - Shorn hair was typical of Aphrodite priestess-prostitutes; shaven heads were typical of convicted adulteresses (vs. 5).
The parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10), 300 Denarii (John 12:3-5), 50,000 Drachma (Acts 19:19).
Pharisees' teaching on the relationship between illness and sin (Mk. 2)
3. INTERPRET CRITICALLY: Your interpretation must make rational sense. The entire Bible is the product of one author (God) at the same time that it is the product of many authors. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect a consistent message throughout the Bible. Some of these rules are logical implications of a belief in the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture.
FIVE PRACTICAL RULES - These rules will help you to arrive at a critically sound interpretation.
a. Interpret in light of the context of the passage (which author? book? passage?). Never view a passage in isolation from its surroundings. The context should be considered the most important kind of evidence in the interpretation of a passage. Only when no critically feasible interpretation can be found can we claim that a break in context was intended.
Mt. 16:28 - Referring to the transfiguration (in context of passage) "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
2 Peter 1:16- confirms that Peter was an eye witness of Christ's "majesty."
Jas. 1:6-8 - The "doubter" is not simply any Christian who has occasional doubts. He is the "double-minded man," whom James further describes in 4:8 (in context of book) as Christians who posture themselves as loving God but really love the world.
b. Interpret in light of progressive revelation
(Heb. 1:1,2). God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
Heb 8:13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
While God's purpose for man has never changed, his strategy in accomplishing that purpose has changed. He has dealt with man under different "covenants," or "dispensations." Therefore, it is important to ask, "Under which program was this written?" Primary application of the passage will be to the people operating under that program, but not necessarily to others. There may be secondary applications for other programs based on principles which have universal application.
Ex. 20:8-10 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you."
Animal sacrifices, dietary laws, Sabbaths, holy days, festivals, priests and liturgy have all been fulfilled in Christ and are thus obsolete (compare with Col. 2:16,17 "Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." and Heb.
. Theocracy was commanded in the Old Testament, but secular government is affirmed in the New Testament (Rom. 13:1-7; Mt. 22:21).
Mal. 3:7-12 - The practice of tithes should be seen in context of the Old Testament (see Num. 18:21-24; Deut. 14:22-29)
c. Interpret scripture in harmony with other scripture. Since the Bible is inspired by God, it does not contradict itself. Therefore, never interpret scripture in such a way that it clearly contradicts other scriptures. If a passage can be legitimately interpreted in more than one way, choose the interpretation that doesn't contradict other scriptures.
Go back to the initial example of Mark 12:31- "Love your neighbor as yourself." We must interpret this passage in harmony with Jesus' other teachings.
Acts 2:38 could be referring to either baptismal regeneration, or simply adding baptism as a desirable adjunct to the minimum requirement for salvation (i.e., faith). In view of the clear teaching on salvation by grace through faith alone, the latter interpretation is preferable.
d. Interpret the unclear in light of the clear. Every major, essential truth is taught clearly and many times. Never build a doctrine on an unclear passage.
Lk. 16:9 "And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the mammon of unrighteousness; that when it fails, they may receive you into the eternal dwellings." . . . is used by Roman Catholics to support indulgences.
1 Cor. 15:29 "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?" . . . mentions an obscure, unknown practice used in Corinth. Paul doesn't affirm this practice; he just asks why they're doing it if they don't believe in resurrection. Today, the Mormon church uses this passage to elevate dead ancestors to a higher status in the afterlife.
e. Interpret in light of the literary style. The literary style (genre) affects our understanding of the passage. For example, Proverbs should not be interpreted axiomatically like didactic theological statements in the gospels and epistles. It contains many general maxims, but not all proverbs are absolute promises.
Proverbs 22:6 - Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.
We realize, not every child will go right, but most will.
Proverbs 15:1 - A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
Obviously, not every gentle word will turn away wrath, but in most cases it works.
Contrast these to the didactic teaching of Rom. 8:1.
Which of these rules implies belief in verbal plenary inspiration?
MoMo- Posts : 1856
Join date : 2011-07-03
Location : outside the box, I pooped in it.
Lilly & Rodins Fatal Flaw in Exegesis.
MoMo Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:01 pm
Lilly & Rodins Fatal Flaw in Exegesis, they project their own bias and their interpretation becomes Eisogesis.. cont......
eisogesis: subjectivism. Reading into text something that isn’t there at all. Greek. Same root as exegesis with different prefix. "eis" means "into."
http://www.interfaith.org/foru...
Eisogesis is the act of putting meaning into a text where it is not there.
http://idontknownuthin.com/wik...
Eisogesis is, I believe, a form of Psychological Projection which is in the end nothing more than a good old fashioned defense mechanism.
The vernacular, I suppose, is called, "selective hearing" and/or "selective reading" and/or "selective seeing", and/or, etc., etc., etc.
"Exegesis is the process of getting "out" ('ex') of the text what is truly there in the first place. The opposite to exegesis is eisogesis. This is the process of putting "into" the text something that wasn't intended by the author. So let's explore how to do eisogesis (although most people don't actually need to be instructed on how to do this!).
And here's a fascinating powerpoint presentation that a College Professor did on the difference between exegesis and eisegesis:
http://users.anderson.edu/~glg...
I would speculate that the following is probably true in regard to Mike Tannehill's chronic use of this fallacious hermeneutical technique:
"Eisegesis often reflects psychological needs" 
You're welcome in advance.
eisogesis: subjectivism. Reading into text something that isn’t there at all. Greek. Same root as exegesis with different prefix. "eis" means "into."
http://www.interfaith.org/foru...
Eisogesis is the act of putting meaning into a text where it is not there.
http://idontknownuthin.com/wik...
Eisogesis is, I believe, a form of Psychological Projection which is in the end nothing more than a good old fashioned defense mechanism.
The vernacular, I suppose, is called, "selective hearing" and/or "selective reading" and/or "selective seeing", and/or, etc., etc., etc.
"Exegesis is the process of getting "out" ('ex') of the text what is truly there in the first place. The opposite to exegesis is eisogesis. This is the process of putting "into" the text something that wasn't intended by the author. So let's explore how to do eisogesis (although most people don't actually need to be instructed on how to do this!).
And here's a fascinating powerpoint presentation that a College Professor did on the difference between exegesis and eisegesis:
http://users.anderson.edu/~glg...
I would speculate that the following is probably true in regard to Mike Tannehill's chronic use of this fallacious hermeneutical technique:
"Eisegesis often reflects psychological needs"
You're welcome in advance.
MoMo- Posts : 1856
Join date : 2011-07-03
Location : outside the box, I pooped in it.
Re: Found!! A Source of Lillys madness!!
sharky Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:56 am
Save your breath Barney.....lilly is very delusional...warped...deformed.........look at the Facts in this Thread:
Australia is mostly Desert Wasteland
This Thread is about the Runt Continent Australia that is mostly Desert wasteland and what isn't desert wasteland is often flooded and about to be Volcanized!!!. Capiche?
For instance suzi wuzi/suze aka 'tru lilly/vera susa'; did you know:
Deserts comprise 1.3 million square miles or about 44% of the land area of Australia.
http://www.australiafacts.org/
Australia’s Desert Country
One third of Australia’s land is desert. Australia has 10 deserts of which the largest is the Great Victoria Desert, covering just under 5 percent of the country. Ironically, the Great Victoria Desert is not located in Victoria but is in Western Australia and South Australia. The Great Victoria Desert covers 348,750 square kilometres which makes it around one and a half times bigger than the UK or slightly smaller than Montana.
How Big is Australia?
Australia is the word’s smallest continent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deserts_of_Australia
And if it isn't Desert Wasteland and flooded it's quaking, yes Suze, Australia is amongst the most unstable of Landmasses being part of the Ring of Fire.
Do you know any truths/facts? It doesn't seem so....hmmmmmmmmmmmm........
Australia’s first recorded earthquake after white settlement occurred at Port Jackson, New South Wales in June, 1788 and lasted for about 3 seconds.
Other earthquakes recorded in early Australian history were:
■Hobart in 1827
■South Australia 1837
■Melbourne in 1841
■Perth in 1849.
The first recorded deaths in Australia caused by earthquakes occurred in 1902, at Warooka, South Australia. Two people died of shock after a Richter magnitude 6.0 earthquake.
A train line damaged by an earthquake
In 1917, one miner died and 5 were injured in an underground rock fall triggered by an earthquake in Kalgoorlie, Western Australia.
In the last 80 years, there have been 17 earthquakes in Australia registering 6.0 or more on the Richter Scale. This is a rate of about one earthquake every five years, compared to the world average of about 140 per year.
Although the larger Australian earthquakes have caused significant damage, they are much smaller in strength than the world's most-damaging earthquakes. Until Newcastle's December 1989 earthquake, the damage caused by earthquakes in Australia had been comparatively low.
Quakes that Shook the Nation
Here is a list of some of the major earthquakes to have occured in Australia in recent times:
1 March 1954, Adelaide, South Australia
Adelaide was awakened by a loud rumbling sound. This was followed by shaking, severe enough to crack walls and loosen plaster and chimneys from many houses. Although minor compared to many overseas quakes, the Adelaide earthquake was (at magnitude 5.4) severe enough to cause damage estimated at $350 million (1997 values). No serious injuries were reported.
October 1968, Meckering, Western Australia
One of the more serious Australian earthquakes in fairly recent years occurred at the small town of Meckering. Residents reported seeing ground waves as well as experiencing difficulty when driving as the 6.9 Richter magnitude earthquake struck. Old buildings collapsed, railway lines were buckled and pipelines fractured, and a 37 kilometres long fault scarp (up to 2.5 metres high) was caused. Sixteen injuries were reported and the total cost of damage estimated $50 million.
22 January 1988, Tennant Creek, Northern Territory
Significant earthquakes of magnitudes 6.3, 6.4 and 6.8 occurred near Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory. These resulted in large, long ground ruptures and a 35 kilometre fault (up to 2 metre displacement) which warped underground gas pipelines, but caused only minor damage to the hospital and some homes in the town.
28 December 1989, Newcastle, New South Wales
At 10.27am, Newcastle, Australia's sixth largest city, was partially devastated by a moderate earthquake measuring 5.6 on the Richter Scale. The Newcastle earthquake, the first lethal one in Australia, claimed 13 lives.
The devastation to buildings and other structures was extensive, which was unusual for a relatively-small magnitude earthquake. This was due mainly to an underlying, thin layer of alluvium, which appeared to magnify ground motion (shaking). The epicentre was located 15km West Southwest of the city centre, near Boolaroo.
August 1994, Ellalong, New South Wales
A damaging earthquake again affected the Hunter region of NSW, this time in the Ellalong-Cessnock area. Measuring 5.4 on the Richter Scale, it became our third most-damaging. Several homes, hotels and other buildings suffered seriously and up to 1,000 homes were partly damaged. Infrastructure, commercial and industrial losses also occurred. Insurance payouts were $38 million and total damage costs exceeded $150 million (1997 values).
The End of a Myth
A map showing the Earth's tectonic plates and
earthquake zones.
(see the text on the left for more information)
Despite Australia's seemingly low-risk situation in the middle of one of Earth's larger tectonic plates, we have had many earthquakes larger than that of Newcastle. The map to the right shows that Australia is in the middle of the Australian-Indian Plate.
The Australian Geological Survey Organisation in Canberra estimates that on average, the Australian region experiences an earthquake of at least this size, or larger, every 13-15 months.
Most of these earthquakes have been in low populated areas, so for many years people thought Australia could not be affected by this natural disaster. The Newcastle experience dispelled this myth!
Australian Geology
Due to Australia's geological position, we are prone to what seismologists call 'intra-plate' earthquakes.
These are different to the more familiar plate-margin earthquakes, common in areas like California in the USA and in Japan.
H
Soooo............if Australia isn't a Desert Wasteland,
flooded or being jarred and quaked it is likely that the inhabitants are going to be Bar-B-Qued by Volcanoes, yes Suze-aka 'tru lilly/vera susa' Australia has many Volcanoes and Fault Lines which shatters your deception that Australia is a fertile and stable environment.
got anymore falsehoods you want to share?
Why are you trying to lure innocent humans to that Desert hellhole?
Volcanoes and Earthquakes.
Daily Earthquake activity Reports latest news feed
Earthquake and Fault Line Maps for Australia.
Is there a risk of a volcanic eruption in Australia ?
http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/volcmap.html
Mount Gambier ( Eastern South Australia ) Australia's youngest volcano.
A volcano filled with water. Erupted 4,500 years ago
"...volcanic activity must be considered a serious environmental hazard and risk for the Australian mainland. " Source: The risk of volcanic eruption in mainland Australia - E. B. Joyce.............................The Western Victorian Volcanic Plains are the third largest in the world and exceeded only by the Deccan in western India, and the Snake River Plateau in the United States ( Idaho-Nebraska ).
The Victorian Volcanic Plains are located in Western Victoria and covers over 2.3 million ha (10.36% of the State).
It stretches from Portland in the west to Craigieburn in the east and from Clunes in the north to Colac in the south.........................................“ There are around 400 volcanoes stretching from the Western District of Victoria into the Western Uplands around Ballarat and to the north of Melbourne around Kyneton and Kilmore, in some parts of the Eastern Uplands such as to the north of Benambra, and across to the South Australian border near Mt Gambier.
A volcanic eruption in the Western Uplands could potentially see lava flows and ash falls impacting on Melbourne.
There is also similar volcano risk present in various provinces in Far North Queensland, stretching from south-west of Townsville to near Cairns and up to Cooktown in the Far North. There are more than 380 volcanoes in total across this part of Queensland.
A future eruption in any of these regions would be unlikely to come from an existing volcano (as the volcanoes there are generally considered to be 'once only’ erupters).
Rather, future eruptions would occur at new sites nearby.
The geological record shows that new volcanoes in these areas have erupted perhaps every 2000 years in the past 40,000 years—and given there has not been a major eruption there for the past 5000 years, a significant eruption seems well overdue. " (3)
Australia is mostly Desert Wasteland
This Thread is about the Runt Continent Australia that is mostly Desert wasteland and what isn't desert wasteland is often flooded and about to be Volcanized!!!. Capiche?
For instance suzi wuzi/suze aka 'tru lilly/vera susa'; did you know:
Deserts comprise 1.3 million square miles or about 44% of the land area of Australia.
http://www.australiafacts.org/
Australia’s Desert Country
One third of Australia’s land is desert. Australia has 10 deserts of which the largest is the Great Victoria Desert, covering just under 5 percent of the country. Ironically, the Great Victoria Desert is not located in Victoria but is in Western Australia and South Australia. The Great Victoria Desert covers 348,750 square kilometres which makes it around one and a half times bigger than the UK or slightly smaller than Montana.
How Big is Australia?
Australia is the word’s smallest continent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deserts_of_Australia
And if it isn't Desert Wasteland and flooded it's quaking, yes Suze, Australia is amongst the most unstable of Landmasses being part of the Ring of Fire.
Do you know any truths/facts? It doesn't seem so....hmmmmmmmmmmmm........
Australia’s first recorded earthquake after white settlement occurred at Port Jackson, New South Wales in June, 1788 and lasted for about 3 seconds.
Other earthquakes recorded in early Australian history were:
■Hobart in 1827
■South Australia 1837
■Melbourne in 1841
■Perth in 1849.
The first recorded deaths in Australia caused by earthquakes occurred in 1902, at Warooka, South Australia. Two people died of shock after a Richter magnitude 6.0 earthquake.
A train line damaged by an earthquake
In 1917, one miner died and 5 were injured in an underground rock fall triggered by an earthquake in Kalgoorlie, Western Australia.
In the last 80 years, there have been 17 earthquakes in Australia registering 6.0 or more on the Richter Scale. This is a rate of about one earthquake every five years, compared to the world average of about 140 per year.
Although the larger Australian earthquakes have caused significant damage, they are much smaller in strength than the world's most-damaging earthquakes. Until Newcastle's December 1989 earthquake, the damage caused by earthquakes in Australia had been comparatively low.
Quakes that Shook the Nation
Here is a list of some of the major earthquakes to have occured in Australia in recent times:
1 March 1954, Adelaide, South Australia
Adelaide was awakened by a loud rumbling sound. This was followed by shaking, severe enough to crack walls and loosen plaster and chimneys from many houses. Although minor compared to many overseas quakes, the Adelaide earthquake was (at magnitude 5.4) severe enough to cause damage estimated at $350 million (1997 values). No serious injuries were reported.
October 1968, Meckering, Western Australia
One of the more serious Australian earthquakes in fairly recent years occurred at the small town of Meckering. Residents reported seeing ground waves as well as experiencing difficulty when driving as the 6.9 Richter magnitude earthquake struck. Old buildings collapsed, railway lines were buckled and pipelines fractured, and a 37 kilometres long fault scarp (up to 2.5 metres high) was caused. Sixteen injuries were reported and the total cost of damage estimated $50 million.
22 January 1988, Tennant Creek, Northern Territory
Significant earthquakes of magnitudes 6.3, 6.4 and 6.8 occurred near Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory. These resulted in large, long ground ruptures and a 35 kilometre fault (up to 2 metre displacement) which warped underground gas pipelines, but caused only minor damage to the hospital and some homes in the town.
28 December 1989, Newcastle, New South Wales
At 10.27am, Newcastle, Australia's sixth largest city, was partially devastated by a moderate earthquake measuring 5.6 on the Richter Scale. The Newcastle earthquake, the first lethal one in Australia, claimed 13 lives.
The devastation to buildings and other structures was extensive, which was unusual for a relatively-small magnitude earthquake. This was due mainly to an underlying, thin layer of alluvium, which appeared to magnify ground motion (shaking). The epicentre was located 15km West Southwest of the city centre, near Boolaroo.
August 1994, Ellalong, New South Wales
A damaging earthquake again affected the Hunter region of NSW, this time in the Ellalong-Cessnock area. Measuring 5.4 on the Richter Scale, it became our third most-damaging. Several homes, hotels and other buildings suffered seriously and up to 1,000 homes were partly damaged. Infrastructure, commercial and industrial losses also occurred. Insurance payouts were $38 million and total damage costs exceeded $150 million (1997 values).
The End of a Myth
A map showing the Earth's tectonic plates and
earthquake zones.
(see the text on the left for more information)
Despite Australia's seemingly low-risk situation in the middle of one of Earth's larger tectonic plates, we have had many earthquakes larger than that of Newcastle. The map to the right shows that Australia is in the middle of the Australian-Indian Plate.
The Australian Geological Survey Organisation in Canberra estimates that on average, the Australian region experiences an earthquake of at least this size, or larger, every 13-15 months.
Most of these earthquakes have been in low populated areas, so for many years people thought Australia could not be affected by this natural disaster. The Newcastle experience dispelled this myth!
Australian Geology
Due to Australia's geological position, we are prone to what seismologists call 'intra-plate' earthquakes.
These are different to the more familiar plate-margin earthquakes, common in areas like California in the USA and in Japan.
H
Soooo............if Australia isn't a Desert Wasteland,
flooded or being jarred and quaked it is likely that the inhabitants are going to be Bar-B-Qued by Volcanoes, yes Suze-aka 'tru lilly/vera susa' Australia has many Volcanoes and Fault Lines which shatters your deception that Australia is a fertile and stable environment.got anymore falsehoods you want to share?
Why are you trying to lure innocent humans to that Desert hellhole?
Volcanoes and Earthquakes.
Daily Earthquake activity Reports latest news feed
Earthquake and Fault Line Maps for Australia.
Is there a risk of a volcanic eruption in Australia ?
http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/volcmap.html
Mount Gambier ( Eastern South Australia ) Australia's youngest volcano.
A volcano filled with water. Erupted 4,500 years ago
"...volcanic activity must be considered a serious environmental hazard and risk for the Australian mainland. " Source: The risk of volcanic eruption in mainland Australia - E. B. Joyce.............................The Western Victorian Volcanic Plains are the third largest in the world and exceeded only by the Deccan in western India, and the Snake River Plateau in the United States ( Idaho-Nebraska ).
The Victorian Volcanic Plains are located in Western Victoria and covers over 2.3 million ha (10.36% of the State).
It stretches from Portland in the west to Craigieburn in the east and from Clunes in the north to Colac in the south.........................................“ There are around 400 volcanoes stretching from the Western District of Victoria into the Western Uplands around Ballarat
and to the north of Melbourne around Kyneton and Kilmore, in some parts of the Eastern Uplands such as to the north of Benambra, and across to the South Australian border near Mt Gambier.A volcanic eruption in the Western Uplands could potentially see lava flows and ash falls impacting on Melbourne.
There is also similar volcano risk present in various provinces in Far North Queensland, stretching from south-west of Townsville to near Cairns and up to Cooktown in the Far North. There are more than 380 volcanoes in total across this part of Queensland.
A future eruption in any of these regions would be unlikely to come from an existing volcano (as the volcanoes there are generally considered to be 'once only’ erupters).
Rather, future eruptions would occur at new sites nearby.
The geological record shows that new volcanoes in these areas have erupted perhaps every 2000 years in the past 40,000 years—and given there has not been a major eruption there for the past 5000 years, a significant eruption seems well overdue. " (3)
sharky- Posts : 493
Join date : 2011-10-21
Location : The Rhumb Line
Re: Found!! A Source of Lillys madness!!
Billy Ruben Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:12 pm
Billy Ruben wrote:Hi shitbag scumbucket.Cause you were spiteful spamming unrelate crap this morning and my little modem packed in,I just had a friend/connection replace modem,line filter,all chords and Now I'm going to be a bastard and spam the fuck out of this place.Sod was warned and he can't do shit about it,so suck my dick you dog raping,child porn freak...and you admitted you have child porn and JD John Drake/Droike plays moral card one day and defends a known and self confessed pervert the next day.Enjoy the Federal Police babe,cause they're next babe...FUCK YOU BITCH !!!!!!
Billy Ruben wrote:I was wondering Suzy Ryan,as a rough guess,did you get your 24 hour warning today?.When you do and if,under section 32 of the Mental Health act in NSW,you just have to hide in the cupboard like I did for 5 days,when I had three squad cars and a padded wagon waiting to take me away after the hoax rape fiasco.
Of course I was sane,even the nurses noticed that,believed my occult story one of them,having dealt with a patient a victim of the same group.
But don't say I didn't warn you,it's for your own good and well-being,taking a break and maybe,besides giving you plastic forks and knives and taking your shoe laces off you,(wear slip-ons or boots),behave,they might let you tinker in the garden.But you hold up those police officers with knitting needles,like I expect and you'll get your WACO...understand me.
Because,I really am Tintin/David Icke and have had my eye on you for a very long time little missy.
This part of the universe is dark and in control of Satan itself and snuffing out the very few specks of light in this dark,evil world,is my job.Don't take it to personal,my little Jesus lamb.
And I know you are the lamb to be sacrificed to begin Armageddon,but I will prevent your blood from flowing,little child of God.It is my world.
Now,enjoy the prescription drugs,a heavy regimen of,to chemically labotomise and I will visit every night,to spoon feed your mushy gruel,plastic spoon of course with a little prozac sprinkles on your ice-cream.It's because I love you.
Billy Ruben wrote:And when you decide to take a long stroll or go shopping,it's best to have every time-table for buses and trains,like I did.I escaped and went home for bongs,sex and real food.And a shower I did'nt need to wear footwear in.Seeing this horrible old 70 year old,squashing a shit down the drain hole of the shower.I was disgusted.Lock your shower door,or the fat brunette,who offered me free rent and a share in her house,came running in,sucking on my flaccid penis,the shampoo,blinding me at the very right second,almost,comical.I was scared of her.And always knock,before you enter any room,this horrible looking man,said I'm the Butterfly,just as hs started to ejaculate all over the back of the door from fast and furious wanking...be warned.It's gonna be fun.
Billy Ruben wrote:Keep credit cards,ATM savings cards and all electronic ways of getting money,home,or hidden in your pants.They usually keep it in a safe and only allow you $15 a day back in 2002.Do not wear jewellery,rings,wedding or any sort.Keep valuables at home,or safety deposit box.
Billy Ruben wrote:and keep your stupid fucking beliefs to yourself,OK...
Billy Ruben wrote:There is a forum admin here,named Sod/Julian.He's over 35,looks like a demonic version of Sting,Pommy (English),loves a night on the booze and drugs,which on average,makes him a lazy bastard.Like most western men are.Spoilt fuckin' rotten I say.But he'll find his runners,when he's conscripted for Asian battlefields,soon enough.I mean,if the bastard could use an iron lung to assist breathing,he would.It means,he hardly ever moderates,bit picky on who he answers PM's,real bitch.
However,there is a very skilled,rather energetic,smart and sassy,unbiased world wide women here,named Tiswas.
She's spiritual,understanding,gives good debates and I believe,quite unbiased in all matters concerning Icke.Offers the olive branch to those who foolishly,troll and attempt to sway her to the dark side.
This rare lady of light,with all her wisdom and knowledge,would be a great assett to the forums administration and I believe she is the answer to cleaning up the spam wars we have here,for which I trully,hand on heart apologise for my own involvement.
I hope the current admin,the one who needs a iron lung to breathe,maybe consider this idea as one of the few rare instances that I could conceive,that has a small amount of merit.
If anyone feels the idea should be lobbied to our admin,please raise your concerns here.
Thankyou to the forum for your time and consideration,yours sincerely,Billy Ruben.
Billy Ruben wrote:I am sure,in the name of freedom of speech,that Droike,Marpat and True Lilly,their futures would be safe,in the hands of Tiswas.
Not so with Mr Ruben,who would Nazi there arses and relegate them to a new sub-forum,called The Gas Chamber.
Be lucky,that true lights like Tiswas exist.
For I stand for Half-Caste pride,a Nazi and proud of it!!!!
Billy Ruben- Posts : 8077
Join date : 2010-03-29
Location : No Fixed Address
Similar topics» Found!! Source of Lillys madness!!
» Bullfighting Madness...!!!
» Ben Emlyn Jones Relative Madness Pt.2
» True Lilly is the Greatest Lying Fraud Shill On The Net
» True Lilly-Ain't worth a squirt of goat-shit.
» Bullfighting Madness...!!!
» Ben Emlyn Jones Relative Madness Pt.2
» True Lilly is the Greatest Lying Fraud Shill On The Net
» True Lilly-Ain't worth a squirt of goat-shit.
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum