waysider

What would be the point in discussing this with private messages? If the product is defective, every customer who bought it has a right to know. *Yeah, I know, we didn't "buy" it, we gave a "donation". What say we keep that aspect in a separate thread? *(Requisite obviation)

Happy Birthday, Mo!

Blatant errors in PFAL Pretty straightforward concept, really. Is "throughly" really any different from "thoroughly"? Were there genealogy errors stated? Are the differences between "dechomai" and "lambano" real or perceived? Are the two "Kingdoms" synonymous? Etc. It all seems fairly basic and devoid of personal prejudice.

With the advent of the internet, isn't it somewhat of a moot point? (The financial aspect not withstanding, of course.)

"Oh, Blinding Light"

I'll tell you something that amazes me. When I left Cleveland in the early to mid 1970s, it was a virtual hotbed of PFAL and TWI activity. Two big branches. Lots of twigs. Classes, classes, classes and more classes. People going WOW, Corps, etc. Then I come here and find out that at least one wave of WOWs, and possibly more, were sent in after I left. For What???? Word Over The World my foot! It was all about sending salesmen into areas where they thought the market was receptive.

The random snow squall argument is a bust. Not a cloud in the sky. Wrong time of year. No supporting records. Plus, according to TW:LIL, it was a "phenomenon" which means it could not have been a naturally occurring event anyway. So a random squall would not qualify as phenomena. And, if it was possible for it to be a naturally occurring random squall, why would he be so amazed at it anyhow? So, the possibility of it being a random squall is a moot point. Not even worth considering. The only thing left is phenomena. But Wierwille himself taught that the fleece deal in the O.T. was a one time event and that you can't order God to give you a sign, order up phenomena. Well, if he was right about that, he disproved his own snowstorm. If he was wrong, and he really saw it, the snowstorm would contradict his teaching on the subject and thus flush his credibility down the crapper. But personally, I like Groucho's take on it the best.

What is being looked at here is really a supposed chronological, historical event, devoid, for the most part, of doctrinal matters.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/iwx/program_areas/...07&month=09 According to September weather statistics for Fort Wayne, Indiana, the record snowfall for the month of September is--------zero.

TW:LIL Page 177 " After I met Rosalind Rinker in Indiana, I invited her to visit us in Payne, and she came for a week that summer of 1942. Maybe it was August. I remember it was near the end of summer------------" Page 178 "Then Rosalind left. It was the fall of the year. Kids were in school already. It must have been September." Page 180 "The sky was crystal blue and clear. Not a cloud in sight. It was a beautiful early autumn day. I said, 'If that was really you, and you meant what you said, give me a sign. Let me see it snow.' My eyes were tightly shut as I prayed. And then I opened them. (Even "random squalls" require clouds.) "The sky was so white and thick with snow, I couldn't see the tanks at the filling station on the corner not 75 feet away." Doctor relates this phenomenon in a joyous voice. ************************************** Growing up in Ohio, I can remember how crazy hot it always seemed to be the first two weeks back from summer vacation. There was no air conditioning back then so the memory is still quite vivid.

Fort Wayne, Indiana

Happens to a lot of "old grads".

I guess I don't get it. If it was just a rogue snow squall that nobody else happened to see, what makes it so phenomenal? I mean, if it was just a rogue snow squall, that would make it a natural occurrence, not phenomenon.

I thought the question was "Do you believe the snowstorm was real?" Now you're saying it's the audible voice that's in question? Maybe you could clarify.

So then a "short, isolated snow squall" could be considered a phenomenon of Biblical proportions? This snowdrift gets deeper all the time.

Incidentally----Wierwille, himself, claimed (IIRC, in the PFAL class) that research should be approached with an open mind, even though, in practice, that's not what he did. As an example, he cited his experiences with researching the number of days between the Ascension and Pentecost. At one time he said it was seven and another time said it was eight. He said (paraphrased), "In The Way Ministry, if new research shows our old research to be incorrect, we change."

From The snowstorm thread Mike said: Again, Mark, what is a factual error to you can be seen as not at all the case when you use differing methods to read the writings. This shouldn’t be too hard to see. We were shown how unbelieving scholars can read errors into the ancient scriptures by way of their methodology, right? ******* Then waysider said: Differing methods? What, pray tell, might be these "differing methods" one might use to explain the errors in genealogy that Ham pointed out? ********* To which Mike replied: #1 One method would be meekness. I alluded to this before in my response to Mark in Post #633 when I said "We were shown how unbelieving scholars can read errors into the ancient scriptures by way of their methodology, right? " We were taught this in the class, remember? The assumption must be made before beginning that the text is right. Then you look for the answers on THAT side of the tracks, not on the side that you all are on, assuming that it's full of errors. #2 Another would be being familiar with ALL the places in the writings where the target topic comes up. This takes years, and it must be done with #1 in mind. #3 Word studies - key words that are employed in the target topic need to be defined in terms of how they are used elsewhere WITHIN the PFAL writings, not how they are defined outside the writings. This too takes much time, especially considering we don't have a concordance for the PFAL writings. There are others. I've listed these here many times in years past, but thanks for not seeing them, cuz it gives me a chance to repeat them for newcomers. ********** Then waysider said: Excuse me, Mike That's utter nonsense. The genealogy errors are simply that----errors. It shouldn't take "years" or a "PFAL concordance" to recognize that. Approaching the text with an presumption that it MUST be right or wrong, is faulty research methodology. *********** Mike's response: Not necessarily. If a researcher has ALREADY determined that the text is right from previous research, then current searches can use that previous result to help guide the work. Similarly, if the text has previously been found by a researcher to be faulty, then the methods I suggested would not be used. You're assuming that all research has as its goal finding the text right or wrong. That's not the case with me, and it's not the case with others here. I start out with the assumption that the text is right, and an apparent error needs to be reconciled, so I keep searching until a satiffactory answer is found. Others here start out with the assumption that the text is wrong, and they work it until they think they've demonstrated this by finding an apparent error, and that's where they halt their search. It sounds to me that you've only thought this through from one side. It's like you're too emotionally invested with the idea that the text is wrong, and this prevents you from seeing the other possible side. That possibility offends you so much you don't give it enough time and brainpower to see what I'm talking about. *********** Mike (from above context) I start out with the assumption that the text is right, and an apparent error needs to be reconciled, so I keep searching until a satiffactory answer is found. ************ waysider's response: Paraphrased straight out of PFAL That's exactly what Wierwille did. He made up his mind what HE thought it should say and wouldn't relent until he found a way to fit it with his own thinking. "The Word MUST say it's Ok to have sex with someone else's wife, kids, it just HAS to." ************** SNIP Mike: I gotta go to work.

"Yes, Your Honor, I took the horse. But, after all, since God put him here originally, I figured he must be Public Equine. Anyways, it seemed cruel to me that someone had tied him the gas pumps. (what with there being a blinding snow cone machine inside the fillin' station and all that.) So I said, 'Lord. I need a sign. Doesn't have to be neon or nuthin fancy. But ifffen it's Ok fer me to take this here horse, let him whinny as I cinch up my saddle'. And whinny he did. So you see, Your Honor, it must have been predestined to be since before the foundations of horse shoes. I named him Frosty in honor of the circumstance under which we first got aquainted that cold, cold August day." Hi Yo, Silver Iodide, Away!

288 acres of N.C. forest?? I wonder what kind of harvest value you're looking at there! Could be like sitting on a gold mine.

Apparently you're not hip to the latest and greatest research techniques, Mr. Ham. Get with it, Daddy-O!

This one: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=19238

Simple Show me what it is you think I missed and let that speak for itself.

Excuse me, Mike That's utter nonsense. The genealogy errors are simply that----errors. It shouldn't take "years" or a "PFAL concordance" to recognize that. Approaching the text with an presumption that it MUST be right or wrong, is faulty research methodology.