Leaderboard

Mike, actually the way corps motto came from the gospels - during Jesus’ temptations in the wilderness, his reply to the devil began with “it is written” By that phrase Jesus was obviously referring to something specifically noted in a certain text...to OT passages applicable to the situations presented by the devil. So what specific errors are you alluding to? to me it seems that Jesus' use of the OT scriptures was perfect...I don't see any contradictions...misapplications...or that there's anything missing from the accounts. Do you mean you don’t think Jesus’ response was adequate to thwart the devil’s temptations? So what do you mean "it is written with flaws"? I've heard wierwille teach on the temptations of Jesus several times and he NEVER addressed any textual errors in the KJV - and the KJV was all he used for those teachings. You’ve got my curiosity up now- - - could you please provide a detailed list of “the flaws” in the KJV passages used in the corps program as well as the reason why they should not be considered “God’s Word” ....and also could you explain why there wasn’t a disclaimer issued to that effect in any corps material we studied (for example: “this isn’t God’s Word but the reason we quote from it is because this is the only thing currently available ”) Or better yet WHY didn’t wierwille just use his own translation all the time? like those literal translation according to usage...I wouldn't trust those now - especially after reading "Undertow" and Penworks' account of how wierwille pressured the research department to kowtow to his doctrinal preferences. Seems like a clunky or precarious way to communicate or teach God’s Word if there’s yet another undefined step to truly understand a different meaning from KJV ...I mean wierwille used KJV to provide “retemories” to support way corps principles, besides the fact that it’s almost exclusively the only version quoted in PFAL - - - so how are all the passages he quoted NOT Gods Word? sorry to ask so many questions but it does seem odd to me that you say you're really into PFAL as being uniquely the God-breathed word and so critical of what the corps program was all about - yet you never were in the corps program. I was in the corps program and I can tell you flat out – it was all about PFAL… and wierwille, as well as the entire faculty used the KJV in their teachings; and often that (the KJV) was referred to as “the word” or “God’s word”. And I don't recall a whole bunch of text corrections as being a big part of the curriculum - or any part for that matter. I mean, even in teachings for the general public we’ve all heard TWI-teachers announce “I’m going to teach on what God’s word says about finances” and then they open up their KJV bible and start teaching. anyone can say that they’re going to share the word of God on a particular subject from any number of decent translations available – but I think the more critical thing to consider is whether or not they’re handling the word of God deceitfully...that's a fascinating point mentioned in II Corinthians 4:2 - "not handling the word of God deceitfully" - so it is possible to have in your possession the word of God and yet by your preaching or teaching you can use it deceitfully...wierwille's smoke and mirrors led people to believe he was going for the original text - - but in reality he was altering the intent of a passage. ...and that's why I am suspicious of anything wierwille taught and why I have nothing to do with PFAL and TWI. wierwille and company have a proven track record of being consummate hypocrites and have mastered the art of being crazy-smart-deceitful...in the corps, we learned "the word" alright - really it was wierwille's skewed interpretation of the word of God. …Mike, I suspect you may have allowed some logical fallacies perpetrated by wierwille to cloud your ability to think clearly. How can you discount the KJV or any reputable translation as not being God’s word? What bearing does PFAL have on the great doctrines of the church? I asked you this earlier in another post but I’ll bring it up again. what great impact would PFAL have to the Christian faith? what difference would it make to a Christian who already follows the Bible as his only rule for faith and practice? I tend to think wierwille presented a false dilemma with his rhetoric of having to "get back to the original God-breathed word" - almost like how a shell game is used to perpetrate fraud; "where are you going to find the word? is it in that denomination, or from that minister? no, I (wierwille) have it right here because I'm the only one who really knows how to rightly divide the word". he made it sound so scholarly how "we have to compare texts"...i have over 40 different versions of the Bible in book form - a lot more if you count the eBooks and Bible apps I have on devices...taking into account the different types of translation used (dynamic equivalence, literal, paraphrase, etc.) I am hard pressed to find any major or even minor theological shifts due to a variation in the text... but wierwille had lots of people going with his shell game - you have to trust him to show you how the text should be understood....you even admitted this in an earlier post - when you referred to wierwille's writings as more along the lines of commentaries...I suggest you get into some commentaries by scholars who are honest and don't have a hidden agenda...if you're interested I can make a few recommendations. and to me there is something very deceitful about giving folks the idea that "this is what it should read in the original text" - when all he was doing was throwing a lot of weight into his own interpretation. honestly - wierwille was not about getting back to the original God-breathed word - it was all about him manipulating folks to get on board with what he thought the Bible should say, plain and simple. And he would often refer to this as "the word", "God's Word", "the original God-breathed word"...what a fraud ! what a liar ! wierwille was an incompetent plagiarist...he stole Bullinger's work on the keys to the interpretation of the Bible but wierwille's conclusion differed from Bullinger's in a dramatic way. The text they both referred to was II Peter 1:20 knowing this first no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation...Bullinger emphasized the genitive of origin - i.e. no scripture originated by private interpretation or one's own ideas...wierwille twisted it - to infer that no scripture may be privately interpreted - and then forwarded the idea that the Bible must interpret itself - which is a totally preposterous ! And another thing, how can anyone trust wierwille's interpretation of a passage or how the original text should read in the Greek text when he lied about taking any Greek classes through Moody Bible School correspondence courses...he said he did...but it's a matter of public record that he never took any of their courses. what a liar! What a fraud! so deceitful!

You can also learn a lot about people from the questions they avoid answering.

Ok- Mike is right regarding the Bible that we have only remakes of what was said to have been once the Godbreathed Word. So, since the PFAL books do not attempt to cover specifically every verse of whatever the originals were, maybe PFAL is God’s Reader Digest Condensed version or “Scripture Lite??? How comforting that is. It fits with VPW’s Bigly Condensed PhD. (sigh). I do have a question though. Since the later editions of the PFAL series are a little different than the original editions, was it the original edition that was god-breathed or the revised ones? Weren’t the originals revised BECAUSE of errors found in them? What about the errors in the later versions? Damn this is confusing! I guess God decided a lot of his original god-breathed scriptures were superfluous fluff...or maybe he realized he made mistakes in them and is trying to cover it up by doing PFAL Bible Lite Condensed and Revised. What a mess!

Yet another distracting device. Some might think it a great ADvantage to not know other posters in person, so that the PoV can be considered outside any background knowledge. Do the facts support the argument, or does one's knowledge of the person tip the balance - either to agree or to disagree with the argument? If personal knowledge of a poster tips the balance, then what is being considered, the argument or the person? People here don't need to prove their PoV because nobody here has stated that they think the scriptures are Godbreathed or any such argument. The context is: is PFAL "Godbreathed" as you, Mike, assert?

No, the tangents are not important also. You either can make your case without distraction or you can't. Don't expect sympathy from anyone here because you have a problem with instant gratification (which is what getting distracted is all about). Yes, anything can and will be picked apart. EVERY argument humans make are is subject to people finding holes in them and point out the holes. If you genuinely want to accomplish what you have claimed you want to accomplish, get to it. But you're not fooling anyone here with your weak-willed inattention to your claimed intent. If you don't go offline and make your case, every person here who has vocally scoffed at your intent will (continue to) be justified. If you DO write up an argument then come back here to present it, if you are sincere about your intent, you'll look at the criticism that follows as opportunity to go back offline and update the argument. Lather, rinse, repeat.