T-Bone

It's forbidden to add or subtract words to God's original prophecy - I read that in Revelation 22:18,19. I agree there's lots of ways to defend PFAL theology: re-interpret, misconstrue, re-define, avoid specifics, etc. Oak, I'm sorry I opened my big mouth and derailed the thread - hopefully it will get back on track - unless the original ancient topic is unrecoverable...Ok, ok...ok! I swear this is my last post on this issue - I've got it off my chest - "we're all out of the man now." Love and peace to you, Mike.

Yeah – you're seeing double – and we're all experiencing déjà vu. Here we go again over the greatest epistle to the 21st century church – PFAL the Mike Edition.

The span of time is not the issue. How do you know exactly what's missing from the original ancient Scriptures – if you don't have original ancient Scriptures to refer to? You're not making any sense. So you’re saying there’s portions of the Bible missing that would reveal this?

I agree – it is not possible to recover the original Scripture documents. Excuse me for being so "irreverent" – but exactly what do you think we're going to find in them that will have a major impact on Christian doctrine? What is on the missing pieces to these tattered remnants?...Genesis 1:32 Oh and one more thing God did on the sixth day – He created the law of believing. He waited until then because He worried His believing might not have been big enough to create the heavens and the earth [from The TWI-Light Last Gleaming Version]. I believe the "essence and full power" of the Scriptures reside not IN the Scriptures – but in the author of Scripture – God Almighty! After all, the Scriptures are HIS words and HE watches over them – such as in the case of Jehoiakim destroying some of them: Jeremiah 36: 20-32 NASB 20 So they went to the (AN)king in the court, but they had deposited the scroll in the chamber of (AO)Elishama the scribe, and they reported all the words to the king. 21Then the king sent Jehudi to get the scroll, and he took it out of the chamber of Elishama the scribe. And Jehudi (AP)read it to the king as well as to all the officials who stood beside the king. 22Now the king was sitting in the (AQ)winter house in the (AR)ninth month, with a fire burning in the brazier before him. 23When Jehudi had read three or four columns, the king cut it with a scribe's knife and (AS)threw it into the fire that was in the brazier, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was in the brazier. 24Yet the king and all his servants who heard all these words were (AT)not afraid, nor did they (AU)rend their garments. 25Even though Elnathan and Delaiah and Gemariah (AV)pleaded with the king not to burn the scroll, he would not listen to them. 26And the king commanded Jerahmeel the king's son, Seraiah the son of Azriel, and Shelemiah the son of Abdeel to (AW)seize Baruch the scribe and Jeremiah the prophet, but the (AX)LORD hid them. 27Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah after the king had (AY)burned the scroll and the words which (AZ)Baruch had written at the dictation of Jeremiah, saying, 28"(BA)Take again another scroll and write on it all the former words that were (BB)on the first scroll which Jehoiakim the king of Judah burned. 29"And concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah you shall say, 'Thus says the LORD, "You have (BC)burned this scroll, saying, '(BD)Why have you written on it that the (BE)king of Babylon will certainly come and destroy this land, and will make man and beast to cease from it?'" 30'Therefore thus says the LORD concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah, "He shall have (BF)no one to sit on the throne of David, and his (BG)dead body shall be cast out to the heat of the day and the frost of the night. 31"I will also (BH)punish him and his descendants and his servants for their iniquity, and I will (BI)bring on them and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the men of Judah all the calamity that I have declared to them--but they did not listen."'" 32Then Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to Baruch the son of Neriah, the scribe, and he (BJ)wrote on it at the dictation of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire; and many similar words were added to them. Getting back to Oakspear's topic – it's obvious YOU didn't re-evaluate what you were taught. Insinuating any understanding other than the "original full understanding" as taught by VPW is wrong. I find the assumption in your "thesis" confusing. What has the unrecoverable ancient Scriptures have to do with God intervening in 1942 and allowing PFAL/the "spiritual perspective" to have predominance? There's two different issues here. Efforts to recover ancient documents are typically carried on by scholars for a number of reasons [textual criticism, translations, etc.] and are based on existing artifacts. That's quite different from PFAL's way of twisting Scripture around pet doctrines and making students think they're getting back to the original God-breathed Word. Are students given a whole new translation of the Bible when they take PFAL? Nope – they're given a whole new way to look at the Bible – the way VPW looked at it. Students are shown a number of ways to twist Scripture into VPW's theology: Refer to/Plagiarize any material to prove your point, when that won't help re-define Hebrew, Greek or English words, ignore context, wish you could see it in the original, etc.

LikeanEagle - do keep us posted. Our thoughts and prayers are for all the students, staff, faculty and family touched by this tragedy. Tonto & T-Bone

I would say so… Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say." Sometimes we hear variations of that like "Actions speak louder than words." I even remember hearing VPW say he'd rather see a sermon than hear one – it does sound good to spout that stuff off doesn't it. Rather than say their behavior affected TWI's doctrine - perhaps it would be closer to the truth to say their doctrine was a melding of their behavior and sermons. This in turn is assimilated by followers and would definitely affect how they think, make decisions, and behave. It goes along the lines of what Jesus said in the gospels. Matthew 5:17-20 NASB 17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." The hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day did the same thing. Their behavior invalidated the righteous demands of Scripture and was in effect their real message.

Thinking about one of my old favorites – it still would apply to TWI – though now from the standpoint of explaining why there’s always been so much evil and corruption there: Nothing happens without leadership

Several things come to mind. I think their sexually perverted suggestions, speculations and embellishments of things left unspoken in Scripture reveals how pervasive their moral depravity was/is – permeating their viewpoint…their reasoning. Perhaps when the conscience is seared - cauterized by habitual sin – there is no internal warning system to sound an alarm, "hey, your thinking is WAY OFF COURSE – you're gonna crash!!!!!" And whether it was intentional or not – bombarding TWI-followers with their moral filth/sexually oriented interpretations has a de-sensitizing effect. That would certainly work in the favor of any sexual predator. What behavior an outsider would consider criminal and lewd – loses some of its shock effect on insiders…weakened or nullified by the perverted onslaught…I don't know – is that being intellectually molested? Is there – even a remote possibility – that some would eventually have an attitude of acceptance? When you combine their sexual predications with their law-of-believing doctrine I think that could happen. Maybe reasoning along these lines: "We live in a sinful world. Stuff like this happens all the time – just look a little deeper in the Bible and you'll see it's in there too. Bad things happen to people because of their fear – or lack of believing."

Catholics give their belly buttons up for Lint.

Satori, thanks for the Jaco and Victor clips!

Good point, Lone Wolf! The MacArthur Study Bible has some interesting comments that go along the same lines as what you said: “Hebrews 11:33-38 The many accomplishments and sufferings described in these verses apply generally to those faithful saints. Some experienced great success, whereas others suffered great affliction. The point is that they all courageously and uncompromisingly followed God, regardless of the earthly outcome. They placed their trust in Him and His promises [cf. 6:12; II Timothy 3:12]… Hebrews 11:39, 40 something better. They had faith in the ultimate fulfillment of the eternal promises in the covenant [verse 13]…”

Chatty, you made me think of Jerry Van Dyke's character on the Dick Van Dyke show. He played Rob's brother, and would come to life while as a sleepwalker playing the banjo and cutting up. Tonto is trying to remember what he'd call Rob while in his sleepwalking mode – was it "Burford"? Maybe you Nostalgia Scholars can help us out.

Thanks for the technical info, RainbowsGirl - I quoted your post in my Testing thread - where I keep stuff like this for easy access. Socks, you so funny!!!!!

RainbowsGirl, thanks for the Prine/Dement clip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Love that tune!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Great point, Bolshevik! Reading the passage that VPW used to "document" the law of believing - it appears he ignored the context. Verse 22 implies a linkage between the "faith" mentioned in verse 21 and "ask in prayer" of verse 22. Furthermore, some sort of a partnership with God is implied with the very mention of prayer. When we pray - are we asking an inanimate force or are we asking God Almighty? Matthew 21:20-22 NASB 20 Seeing this, the disciples were amazed and asked, "How did the fig tree wither all at once?" 21 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. 22 "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." This law of believing doctrine is an arrogant way to tell God to take a hike and we'll handle it from here. In effect it severs a relationship with God. With the focus off God one is left with either being self-centered or fixating on the thing desired. What or who – technically speaking – is actually moving the mountain? VPW said the law of believing works for saint and sinner alike. If a sinner could move that mountain then either there really is some unseen inanimate force [like a mind-over-matter thing, "may the Force be with you"] at work or God is forced into doing it since someone rubbed the lamp. By simply cross-referencing an amazing feat attributed to faith one can see there's more to it than just something the believer "does." An instance of faith shutting the mouths of lions is mentioned in Daniel 6 – where King Darius assumed the only way for Daniel to survive was for GOD to rescue him [verse 20 – okay, you say "But Darius didn't take the PFAL Class yet and didn't know about the law of believing." I guess my faith isn't strong enough to shut your mouth – so I'll defer to Daniel's side of the story] and Daniel confirms the king's assumption saying God sent his angel to shut the mouths of the lions [verse 22]. In summary, the passage concludes with a simple expression of partnership – Daniel had trusted in God [verse 23]. Hebrews 11:33 NASB who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, Daniel 6:19-23 NASB 19 At the first light of dawn, the king got up and hurried to the lions' den. 20 When he came near the den, he called to Daniel in an anguished voice, "Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to rescue you from the lions?" 21 Daniel answered, "O king, live forever! 22 My God sent his angel, and he shut the mouths of the lions. They have not hurt me, because I was found innocent in his sight. Nor have I ever done any wrong before you, O king." 23 The king was overjoyed and gave orders to lift Daniel out of the den. And when Daniel was lifted from the den, no wound was found on him, because he had trusted in his God.

US News & Weltverstand Report Washington DC. The Environmental Protection Agency ruled yesterday against GSC moderator’s toxic disposal procedures. GSC personnel will no longer be permitted to dump TWI books, magazines, tapes, green cards, and TWI-annotated Bibles of former followers at any hazardous waste facility – and to frustrate GSC officials even further - prohibited taking them to a radioactive waste dump site - stating that “the materials pose a significant threat to the mental environment of our free country - even in their dormant form.” The EPA has yet to issue a directive on how GSC is to dispose of the materials. In response to the EPA’s edict a GSC representative who prefers to remain anonymous said, “Guess we’ll go back to our traditional method and burn ‘em on Uncle Harry Day.”

Great thread – what a great idea – thanks everybody! Speaking of John Prine – Tonto turned me on to his music awhile back – love it! A favorite tune of ours is In Spite of Ourselves on his CD of the same name. It’s a duet he sings with Iris DeMent [a sweet voice] – the words are hilarious: In Spite of Ourselves by John Prine She don’t like her eggs all runny She thinks crossin’ her legs is funny She looks down her nose at money She gets it on like the Easter Bunny She’s my baby I’m her honey I’m never gonna let her go He ain’t got laid in a month of Sundays I caught him once sniffin’ my undies He ain’t real sharp but he gets things done He drinks his beer like it’s oxygen He’s my baby I’m his honey I’m never gonna let him go Chorus: In spite of ourselves We’ll end up sittin’ on a rainbow Against all odds Honey, we’re the big door prize We’re gonna spite the noses right off of our faces There won’t be nothin’ but big old hearts Dancin’ in our eyes She thinks all my jokes are corny Convict movies make her horny She likes ketchup on her scrambled eggs Swears like a sailor when she shaves her legs She takes a lickin’ And keeps on tickin’ I’m never gonna let her go He’s got more ba11s than a big brass monkey He’s a whacked out weirdo and a lovebug junkie Sly as a fox and crazy as a loon Payday comes and he’s howlin’ at the moon He’s my baby I don’t mean maybe I’m never gonna let him go Chorus

Socks, great clips – Tonto and I recognized Sleepwalk right away – always liked that tune didn’t know the name. The Kotke/Atkins version is beautiful. Tonto turned me on to Kotke before we were married and we used several of his tunes at our wedding.

Dang it, Socks – I was giving GSC a fast going over 'cause I want to get to bed – and yah had to post a Cream clip – and not just any ol' Cream clip but the cream of the Cream clip! Chatty, if you love Sunshine of Your Love you ought to check out the DVD Cream: Disraeli Gears…the definitive authorized story of the album…It has interviews, acoustic performance and archival footage. One of the best spots is Eric's acoustic rendering of Sunshine of Your Love. While I'm on the subject of Cream – let me get a little ranting out of the way. What the heck happened with the sound track on the Cream Farewell Concert on DVD? There's enough reverb and muddiness on it – that it sounds like they mixed the whole thing at Sponge Bob's house with Gary the Cat as engineer. Golly gee – the Fresh Live Cream DVD with archive footage [from which the You Tube clip came from] is way mo better. Oh well, I guess it's better than not having it at all.

Great posts everyone !!!!!!!!!!!!!! And let me throw in a big "Yup" to what's already been said…CoolChef – I did a terrible thing…criminal really…I sold my old Bible plum full of TWI notes in multi-colored ink at a garage sale not long after we left TWI…I feel like I should track down that buyer and tell them there's been a factory recall…or maybe just direct them to the nearest hazardous waste facility. ...Ha - this is funny - I meant this to be on the other thread - but guess I'll leave it here - shows yah I don't really read what's in front of me anyway...What a maroon!

Nandon and Groucho have made a great point here…Why do I study the Bible? Why do I look into who Jesus Christ was…is? It used to be about getting a lot of knowledge - even after I left TWI. But over the years I've tended to see the Bible more as an instrument of the Holy Spirit to persuade me to love God and my neighbor – and not as something to satisfy my intellectual curiosity. After thinking about these two posts – some Scripture came to mind: Matthew 18:3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven…" I think that implies the kingdom of heaven is accessible to anyone – regardless of intelligence level. Because I think it involves something everyone is capable of at some level – love. As in the following verses, Matthew 22:40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments…Jesus said all the Scripture that existed at the time hung on…was anchored by…supported by…two principles – love for God and neighbor. John 13:35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another…We think we can determine who is a disciple of Jesus by finding out their doctrine, "does it line up with the Word?" – you know the routine. Jesus said the telltale indicator is the genuine love that believers live by. I Corinthians 8:1 Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up…Don't think I need to comment on that.

Though never observed outright VPW was worshipped indirectly. Any reference to his books or classes – which every legitimate TWI teaching should contain – paid homage to this man. I don’t believe anyone ever considered him to be God Almighty – but do think many viewed him as the gateway…the mediator…the high priest between God and man – where he was the focal point for any issue. What did he say about this verse, what does he think of me, I want him to pray for me, what would he do in my situation, etc. And so the attention and concern fixates on him for “deliverance” and love [worship and service] is rendered back to him out of gratitude. Ezekiel 14:7 talks about people separating themselves from God and setting up idols in the heart. VPW-defenders balk at the suggestion of him being an idol – saying “we don’t pray to him or worship him.” Yet people bought into his manipulative self-serving version of God Almighty and let his persona captivate their hearts.

Thanks for those clips, Socks. Wooten’s solo is something else: sounds like he’s playing a hybrid percussion/bass instrument at the first part – then three quarters of the way through it sounds like he’s strumming a guitar. Fishbone was interesting. I especially liked the first one, Everyday Sunshine – it reminded me of Sly and the Family Stone’s sound…I wonder if we’re related…having the same last name? Wonder if they’d be interested in a collaborative project…title the CD Surf & Turf…Love that picture of your family.

Cynic, I for one would appreciate other input on this thread – the more viewpoints the better for a lively, well-rounded discussion… Glad to be Out, I am not trying to be combative. It is just that the tone of the initial post on this thread and the other thread [part B] is condescending and argues against Christ's deity with little regard for the implications of His statements and deeds in the gospels. My intention with posting any of this stuff has not been to defend the doctrine of the Trinity nor try to convert anyone. One reason has been I am tired of hearing the same old arguments from anti-Trinitarians – and please forgive me – but they start sounding like recycled VPW rhetoric with appeals to studying the accuracy of the Word, assuming their interpretation is correct and imagine Trinitarians worship a weird thing called a "Trinity." I thought it might interest some people to see some "fresh" material – so I make it a point to cite some books that cover different ground. I used to buy VPW's argument about holding to the 99 clear verses on a topic and relegating the unclear verse to limbo for further research down the road…someday…maybe. But deeming a passage as clear or unclear can be a matter of opinion. How VPW handled a verse that could put a wrench in his doctrine – was to declare it unclear, not in the original text [like he knew what was in the ORIGINAL text], say the essence of the verse means just the opposite. One such example of the last point is how he handled John 1:1, 2 – in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with [Greek pros] God. He states pros has the idea of together with yet distinctly independent - - okay, in my mind that means at least two distinct persons. VPW said the only way it could be is that the Word was with God in His foreknowledge. So God's foreknowledge was together with yet distinctly independent of God. God was schizophrenic. One reason I prefer the Scripture-rich doctrine of the Trinity is that it attempts to consider ALL the biblical data of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and doesn't resort to reductionism when plumbing the attributes of God. One strong argument for the deity of Christ is analyzing what the gospels reveal of Jesus' self-consciousness. The following excerpts are from Christian Theology by Millard J. Erickson, Baker Book House 1985, pages 684 to 688: "In looking at the biblical evidence for the deity of Christ, we begin with Jesus' own self-consciousness. What did Jesus think and believe about himself?...We should note that Jesus did not make an explicit and overt claim to deity. He did not say in so many words, "I am God." What we do find, however, are claims which would be inappropriate if made by someone who is less than God. For example, Jesus said that he would send "his angels [Matthew 13:41]; elsewhere they are spoken of as "the angels of God" [Luke 12:8-9; 15:10]. That reference is particularly significant, for not only the angels but also the kingdom is spoken of as his: "The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and evildoers." This kingdom is repeatedly referred to as the kingdom of God, even in Matthew's Gospel, where one would expect to find "kingdom of heaven" instead. More significant yet are the prerogatives which Jesus claimed. In particular, his claim to forgive sins resulted in a charge of blasphemy against him. When the paralytic was lowered through the roof by his four friends, Jesus did not respond with a comment about the man's physical condition or his need for healing. Rather, his initial comment was, "My son, your sins are forgiven" [Mark 2:5]. The reaction of the scribes indicates the meaning attached to his words: "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"… [page 684] …Jesus claimed other prerogatives as well. In Matthew 25:31-46 he speaks of judging the world. He will sit on his glorious throne and divide the sheep from the goats. The power of judging the spiritual condition and assigning the eternal destiny of all people belongs to him. Certainly this is a power which only God can exercise… …The authority which Jesus claimed and exercised is also clearly seen with respect to the Sabbath. The sacredness of the Sabbath had been established by God [Exodus 20:8-11]. Only God could abrogate or modify this regulation. Yet consider what happened when Jesus' disciples picked heads of grain on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees objected that the Sabbath regulations [at least their version of them] were being violated. Jesus responded by pointing out that David had violated one of the laws by eating of the bread reserved for the priests. Then, turning directly to the situation at hand, Jesus asserted: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the Sabbath" [Mark 2:27-28]. He was clearly claiming the right to redefine the status of the Sabbath, a right which belongs only to someone virtually equal to God…[page 685] …There are additional indications of Jesus' self-estimation. One is the way in which he juxtaposes his words with the Old Testament, the Scripture of his time. Time and again he says, "You have heard that it was said,…but I say to you…" [e.g., Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28]. Here Jesus presumes to place his word on the same level as Old Testament Scripture. It might be argued that this was merely a claim to be a prophet of the same stature as the Old Testament prophets. It is notable, however, that they based their claim to authority upon what God had said or was saying to and through them. Thus, one finds the characteristic formula, "The word of the Lord came to me saying…" [e.g., Jeremiah 1:11; Ezekiel 1:3]. Jesus, however, does not cite any formula in setting forth his teaching. He simply says, "I say to you…" Jesus is claiming to have the power in himself to lay down teachings as authoritative as that given by the Old Testament prophets. …Jesus also by implication, direct statement, and deed indicates that he has power over life and death. Hannah in her song of praise credits God with having the power to kill and make alive . In Psalm 119, the psalmist acknowledges about a dozen times that it is Jehovah who gives and preserves life. In John 5:21 Jesus claims this power for himself: "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will." Perhaps the most emphatic statement is found in his words to Martha, "I am the resurrection and life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall live" [John 11:25]. Jesus specifically applied to himself expressions which conveyed his self-understanding. One of these is "Son of God."…It signified that Jesus had a relationship to the Father distinct from that of any other human. That Jesus was thereby claiming a unique sonship…was understood by the Jews. We read in John 5:2-18, for example, that they reacted with great hostility when, in defense of his having healed on the Sabbath, Jesus linked his work with that of the Father. As John explains, "This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal to God" [verse 18]. From all the foregoing, it seems difficult, except on the basis of a certain type of critical presupposition, to escape the conclusion that Jesus understood himself as equal with the Father, and as possessing the right to do things which only God has the right to do…" [page 687, 688] End of excerpts

Personally, I think he knew what he was doing whenever he’d speak of any of these people. Perhaps to give the public the appearance of honesty – as if he had nothing to hide. And maybe – if a person keeps saying the same lie repeatedly they’ll start believing it themselves. In order for a salesman to effectively sell his product he’s got to be sold on it himself…And Listener brought up a good point about VPW elevating himself by belittling what the REAL authors accomplished. I remember at PFAL 77 VPW criticized Bullinger – saying something to the effect that Bullinger would sometimes squeeze the Bible so hard he’d have error run out his fingers. Perhaps that can be interpreted to mean Bullinger analyzed the Bible a little too much where it didn’t agree with VPW’s doctrine in some areas.