WordWolf

Ok, this was Ivan Neville's "Not Just Another Girl". It was on the soundtrack of "My Stepmother is an Alien", and got some airplay at the time. I went out and bought the "cassingle" of it back when. The Neville brothers had their own careers, and Aaron Neville arguably had a much bigger hit with Linda Ronstadt singing "Don't Know Much". FREE POST!

I'm stuck. The cigar thing makes me think of "Lou Grant", but the contemporary clothing thing, for some reason, makes me think of "Quantum Leap." Am I anywhere in any ballpark?

Thanks, I was getting frustrated, since I thought that was the most famous quote of the movie. People who go and read the book after the movie will be surprised- the "man" who shows up in the movie is some kind of devil, and the man who shows up in the book is some kind of warlock- an actual human man.

I disagree that the "second coming" was either a fable or cunningly-devised. I'm aware there's different schools of thought on the subject- amillenialism, etc. I'm not planning on badmouthing those positions nor their adherents, since I can't see that helping anyone. My fellow Christians with whom I disagree doubtless feel just as strongly about their positions as I do. If I present a case for my position, that's one thing. But otherwise, I don't see the point.

"I heard a complaint, circa 1977-78, about the research department from 2 associates or members of that department, just a month or two before they were kicked out of the 7th Corps. They told me that VPW was manipulating things and not doing valid research. " Sure sounds like what was just documented. It's remarkably straightforward. He appealed to the authority of what was written in IMAGINARY DOCUMENTS. That's "not doing valid research" to say the least. (To say the most, it's champion-level Bullshirting to pull that and get away with it.)

"Someday we’re going to find a manuscript that verifies this." "“We probably won’t find a manuscript in my lifetime that verifies this, but my spiritual awareness tells me what the original has to say.” ========================= Well, most people will look at this, if not through the lens of adoration of the speaker, and say that this is obviously an attempt by a person to disregard all the available evidence and claim something for which no evidence exists, allowing them to make ridiculous claims that contradict Scripture. When lcm said this stuff, his go-to phrase for pulling stuff out of his sit-upon was "You'd know this if you worked The Word on this." In vpw's case, it was the manuscripts that nobody's ever seen that somehow still support vpw's claims even if they have been read by nobody and there's no proof they even exist. Their existence is all predicated on the "spiritual awareness" of a plagiarizing rapist who lied and claimed to hear from God, who plagiarized the works of many others and still flubbed it often, who listened to conspiracy nuts then turned around and reported what they said and pretended it was Divine Revelation that told him, and got his "doctorate" from a degree mill. Once all that is known, what kind of credibility does the speaker have? That's right- none at all. It was all smoke and mirrors. But when we didn't know any better, that nonsense played a LOT better because we trusted someone untrustworthy and thought we could trust him.

Addressing your question required reading the chapter, so I did. :) Here's the relevant verses in the NASB, to be followed with my answer to your questions, based on my reading of the relevant verses. ================================= II Peter 1: 16-19 (NASB) 16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased "- 18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. ====================================Verse 16 points out the contrast between "cleverly-devised tales" about power and the Lord Jesus Christ's personal presence, and actual eyewitness accounts of the authority of Jesus. Peter and the others were eyewitnesses and reported what they saw and heard directly. They didn't pass along tall tales, legends, myths, etc. Verse 17 brings up the Mount of Transfiguration incident, where the eyewitnesses saw Jesus in conference with Moses and Elijah (IMHO, one heck of a vision brought by God) followed immediately by The Voice of God in the heavens, when He declared that Jesus was His beloved Son in whom He was well-pleased." Verse 18 reiterates that they were eyewitnesses- they were there and saw the guys, they heard the Voice from the heavens. They didn't get a verbal report from someone else, or read that it happened- they were physically there, and physically experienced the moments as they happened. Verse 19 draws an obvious conclusion from all that. It's one thing to believe or disbelieve, but Peter's not going to doubt who Jesus is- because Peter was there when God Almighty confirmed- directly and in the 5 senses and with no confusion- that Jesus was the well-pleasing beloved Son of God Almighty- as reported to them by God Almighty, who would know. They knew it was God Almighty telling them this because only God Almighty can deliver messages in that manner, and nobody else can make the heavens rumble when he speaks like that. So, to Peter, the Scriptures of which he speaks are confirmed by God Almighty Himself. so Peter has no reason to doubt their authority. It's like God Almighty showed up and notarized them on the Mount of Transfiguration. Keeping all of that in mind, Peter's saying to heed "the prophetic word' because it's been confirmed definitively, and will be effective in their hearts, so they should continue with it. This raised the obvious question- what did Peter mean by "the prophetic word"? II Peter 1: 20-2120 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. ========================== I believe Peter was speaking of Scripture as a whole, as much of it as he knew, as "the prophetic word". In the NIV, II Peter 1:20-21 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. ======================== In explaining these verses, vpw read Bullinger's explanation and seemed to be unable to understand it. vpw read Bullinger's explanation and claimed this meant that we shouldn't try to interpret/explain Scripture like I'm doing now, because it came from God. Bullinger didn't say that, vpw flubbed his prepositions, and thus the whole point of 1:20. Bullinger said- and the NIV agrees as do I- that this addresses the ORIGIN of Scripture, that it was not by the Prophet deciding what to write, but rather that the prophets spoke the words spoken from God via the Holy Spirit. So, if Bullinger and I and the NIV are correct, it looks like the "word of prophecy" was addressing God's Scripture as a whole.

For those who wonder what the point is, I'll make some of it obvious. So, we all know, beyond any REASONABLE doubt, that the "1942 promise" was neither from 1942 nor any kind of "promise." We know it was a fraud through and through, and it was used to prop up a man who was a fraud through and through, who used it to trick God's people out of their time and money, and focus them on himself rather than where they were supposed to focus. We all know the plagiarizing rapist made up the claim- and it wasn't even a very convincing lie- and was probably amazed at how far it went. So, when the man whose sole authority stemmed either from his fake "promise" or his degree mill "doctorate" wants us to buy into his stuff- since we NOW know better- we don't fall for it. What about the few people who STILL fall for it? Some of them fall for it a little, and mainly talk about God Almighty, with this delusion as a minor thing in their lives. For that tiny handful who actually double down on delusion, who voluntarily buy into the fake "promise" even after it's been discredited (both thoroughly and throughly), well, those people are dedicating their lives to something PROVEN to be a lie, a fake, a sham, a con. For those who know better, it's sad to watch people like that. They try to convince other people that they're not completely disproven, and have to creatively reinterpret anything better than complete failure as a rousing success (like even 1 person thinking a degree mill wasn't a degree mill), and insist to themselves that everyone else out there- those with more inside information than them, those smarter than them, those who know all the in-house secrets- all of those people are actually the ones who are wrong and don't know what's going on. Rather than growing as they get older, they have to cling dogmatically to the "nice feelings" of the twi hippie years, courtesy of well-meaning, loving Christians who were fooled by vpw and who were everything good about twi- and never actually giving them the credit, instead giving it to vpw who tried to make them slave labor because they were too young and naive. Ultimately, this problem is self-correcting. The numbers of people who know better still increase. The numbers of people who buy into this does NOT significantly increase, and eventually, this problem will "age out." twi's retirement program of "our people will work until they die" also works for people who dedicate their lives to a fake "promise" that's a proven LIE. They will spend their remaining years trying to get others to buy into their hogwash, then they will drop dead. Just as twi and vpw, on a historical scale, don't even register a blip, they will be an anecdote, told amusingly decades later, among people who wondered what could drive someone so far into delusion.

"The place was jammed, the music loud. I could see her face standing out in the crowd As she winked at me. Feeling good, I didn't care All I could see was her standing there. See the crowd got up, the band was playing And in my mind I could hear her saying, 'I love you'. She could have been from anywhere. She could have had most anyone" "When I met her folks there was no surprise- Had her old mans ways and her mothers eyes. Silver spoons, she had everything. She'd leave it all just to hear me sing. I say, the crowd got up, the band was playing And in my mind I could hear her saying, 'I love you.' She could have been from anywhere. She could have had most anything." "I gotta find a way inside her lovely world. I gotta see the day when I can really be sure shell be my girl'. Her royal blood didn't mean a thing, even though our first-born might be a king."

"Sorry, uh, just having a little trouble, a little trouble at home. A little domestic problem. Nothing to be alarmed at. Just a little female problem. Hi. Don't pay any attention. It's a cheap trick. Anybody can do it. I taught it to them myself." "May I ask you something? You're all church-going folk. I really want to ask you something. Do you think God knew what He was doing when He created woman? Huh? No dang! I really want to know." "So, what do you think? Women. A mistake... or did He do it to us on purpose? Because I really want to know! Because if it's a mistake maybe we can do something about it! Find a cure! Invent a vaccine! Build up our immune systems. Get a little exercise. You know... 20 push-ups a day... and you NEVER have to be afflicted with women ever again!" "I think... no, I am positive... that you are the most unattractive man I have ever met in my entire life. You know, in the short time we've been together, you have demonstrated every loathsome characteristic of the male personality and even discovered a few new ones. You are physically repulsive, intellectually retarded, you're morally reprehensible, vulgar, insensitive, selfish, stupid, you have no taste, a lousy sense of humor and you smell. You're not even interesting enough to make me sick." (If anyone ever bothered to read the book on which the movie was based, they''d probably be surprised that there was a major change in one of the main characters, but that's not a clue since it won't help you guess this movie.)

Well, you're right it's not Foreigner. IIRC, it was possibly the biggest hit of a solo artist, who was related to other artists, at least one of whom had at least 1 bigger hit. Overall, it's not the most famous song I've ever done, but it's a really nice one, and it did get airplay, mainly in the 80s, IIRC. It also appeared on a movie soundtrack.

No. Oddly enough, at one point, I would have thought this was an easy one, and this was a giveaway quote. I'll have to get more, but I'm not sure it will work.

"I have a different set of ground rules for how I approach an apparent error in the PFAL collaterals." Right. Some of us remember. "Dodge, deny, distract, but never admit an error is an error."

Someone's conviction that something is correct is proof of nothing other than that person believes that. People have believed all sorts of nonsense throughout history, and some people believe nonsense to this day. It's not wrong to have convictions, but it's silly to think YOUR belief in something is going to convince ME that you're correct.

Ok, found what I was looking for, in the Orange Book, pages 127-128. The Orange Book, page-127-128 says "In proceeding as a workman, there is basic information which must be kept in mind, the first of which is that no translation or version of the Bible may properly be called the Word of God. The Bible from which I have been quoting is called the King James Version. It is not the King James Translation. If I had a King James translation in my hands, I would have a Bible that is worth a great deal of money as a collector's item. Once a translation has been made from an original text, like the Stephens Text from which the King James was translated, the first copy is called a translation. When scholars begin to rework the translation in any way, it becomes a version. Now, I said that no translation, let alone a version, may properly be called the Word of God. As far as anybody knows, there are no original texts in existence today. The oldest dated Biblical manuscript is from 464 AD and written in Aramaic in Estrangelo script. There are older Aramaic manuscripts written in the Estrangelo script which predate 464 AD, but these are not Biblical texts. What students or scholars refer to as 'originals' really date from 464 AD and later. These manuscripts are not originals--the originals are those which holy men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. At best, we have copies of the originals. When I refer to the Word of God, I do not mean a copy or a translation or a version; I mean that Word of God which was originally given by revelation to holy men. Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century AD, how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another word and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all the verses. If it is the Word of God, then if cannot have a contradiction for God cannot contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding. When we get back to that original, God-breathed Word- which I am confident we can- then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the prophets of old, 'Thus saith the Lord'. "

"So, what do you think? Women. A mistake... or did He do it to us on purpose? Because I really want to know! Because if it's a mistake maybe we can do something about it! Find a cure! Invent a vaccine! Build up our immune systems. Get a little exercise. You know... 20 push-ups a day... and you NEVER have to be afflicted with women ever again!"

"The place was jammed, the music loud. I could see her face standing out in the crowd As she winked at me. Feeling good, I didn't care All I could see was her standing there." "Her royal blood didn't mean a thing, even though our first-born might be a king."

The reason is that it gives you something to do. If it doesn't exist- and it doesn't- then you've wasted your time forming the rest of your doctrine- and you have. This means you have nothing special to offer everyone else- and you don't. The most embarrassing part of this doctrine you're so proud you're still pushing is how it's probably the most visible self-contradiction of your own doctrine. You can't give it up without losing what you think makes you unique, and you can't keep it and be in harmony with the Orange Book. According to your doctrine, the Bible's "essentially lost" (your words, not mine.) In the Orange Book, vpw very clearly outlined how WE were to take modern Bibles, "compare one verse with another verse" and so on, and he said he was "confident" that "WE" could finish with an authoritative "THUS SAITH THE LORD." I know you're keen to pretend that isn't a blatant and obvious contradiction, but that's two diametrically-opposed doctrines. You have to claim "well, vpw didn't mean "we" when he said "we" there, or that the entire passage from the Orange Book doesn't apply at all.

This is a discussion for specific "thought experiments." I'm interested in IDEAS here, not definitive doctrines. Much has been said, in some scientific circles, about Flatland. A book was written primarily to poke fun at Victorian England and its caste system. However, in the process, ideas came up that were discussed by scientists later. I'm interested in that part. It's about the possibility of existence in different numbers of dimensions. I'm not going to retype or reiterate the entire book. However, there's a few concepts that I think bear discussing. The imaginary concept of Flatland.... In Flatland, everything that is, exists in TWO DIMENSIONS. Everything is FLAT. All beings exist in flat forms, geometrical in nature. Everything they can perceive is in their 2 dimensions, and that's it. We follow a Square through the story. One day, a Sphere (THREE- DIMENSIONAL) attempts to interact with Square. At first, all Square knows is that a flat disc is trying to interact with him- he can't perceive a SPHERE, since it exists in 3 dimensions. Square can only perceive a 2-dimensional slice of Sphere that's intersecting Flatland. Sphere tries to explain a 3rd dimension, square just can't get it. Sphere moves around, and appears as a disc that is getting larger and smaller (depending on what part of the Sphere is in Flatland.) Eventually, Sphere gets frustrated and picks up Square, who vanishes from Flatland. Now Square is in Spaceland. Square can look out over all of Flatland and see how his existence has been until now, as Flatlanders continue their lives. After further discussion, Sphere returns Square back to where he came from. Part of the discussion was an analogy- if there's a 3rd dimension Square couldn't see, why not figure there's a 4th dimension Sphere doesn't see now? In DC comic books, there's been "5th Dimensional imps" that can travel to Earth. Once, human superheroes were shown traveling to the 5th Dimension to speak to someone in charge. The heroes appeared as flat playing cards, and the locals appeared as roughly human-shaped, as if in 3 dimensions. So, one might consider. If there IS a Supreme God, where would He reside? I've thought-and this is just my thinking, nothing official- that if the universe is finite, and God Almighty is infinite, then.... I picture the universe as if it's an index card, suspended entirely in gelatin or aspic. I picture God Almighty as the gelatin or aspic. The universe is finite, and God is not, so God can't fit in the universe, but the universe could easily fit into God. Further, if this model in some way reflected a God who existed in more dimensions than the universe (thus it's flat and He isn't), then God could easily be "Everywhere-Present" as he surrounds all points at once, in at least 1 dimension "above" and "below" (outside) all of its reference points. If Heaven instead is a dimension beyond the universe, then it's entirely external to the universe and Earth. So, one could travel from a "flat" Earth into a more-dimensional space, and vanish from 2-D sight. Jesus could travel "up" into a 4th dimension and leave Earth entirely. Heaven could be a higher-order dimension much larger than the universe, invisible to Earth but with Earth plainly visible from Heaven (like 3 dimensions looking into 2.) These are just thoughts I like to entertain. How about you guys?

No.

You told us- "Ten times I count the phrase see Jesus in these two pages. Couple this with the introductory paragraph I gave you from p.207, and it's progressing to SEE JESUS that he’s urging with us OLGs to do. It’s for other grads too." =============== Basic pfal- and basic Bullinger- get "to whom" correct. ONCE, vpw mentioned "see Jesus" for us, and nine times he mentioned it for Zaccheus. If he told us ONCE, he's not "urging" us to do it.Once it was for us to "see more and more of God's Word." ==================== On page 207 he writes: As we pass through life, we must climb ever higher and higher in our hearts and minds with the greatness of God’s Word. We must always keep progressing to see more and more of God’s Word and His promises manifested in our daily lives. Then on pages 212-213 we see: All I know is that the Word of God says Zacchaeus was a publican and he was rich. We learn one other thing about Zacchaeus in this account and that is that he was motivated by a wonderful desire: He wanted to see Jesus. Luke 19:3 And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature. Zacchaeus wanted to see Jesus - who he was. Perhaps it was simple curiosity prompting him. The text doesn't say. But whatever the reason, at least he wanted to see Jesus. I wish that today, across our nation, there were more people who wanted to see Jesus. When people ask to see Jesus today, we've got to show him. When they want to see Jesus, who he is, we can show them God's Word and the greatness of Jesus Christ's position in the Word. Zacchaeus wanted to see Jesus, but he couldn't. The reason he couldn't see him or get to him was for "the press." That doesn't mean the news media, such as newspaper, radio, or television reporters. "Press" means "numbers of people." There were so many people surrounding Jesus that Zacchaeus couldn't get a glimpse of him. Verse 3: . . . because he was little of stature. Zacchaeus was short. The biggest thing about him was his desire to see Jesus. Verse 4: And he [Zacchaeus] ran before [ahead of where Jesus was walking], and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him: for he [Jesus] was to pass that way. Zacchaeus climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to get a view of this noted person, Jesus, whom people were talking about. Zacchaeus took the necessary action to fulfill his desire. That's very important. If you want to see Jesus Christ through God's Word, you need to move, take action. Zacchaeus took the initiative and climbed up into that sycamore tree. */*/*/* Ten times I count the phrase see Jesus in these two pages. Couple this with the introductory paragraph I gave you from p.207, and it's progressing to SEE JESUS that he’s urging with us OLGs to do. It’s for other grads too. ================================ This is one reason people don't trust your doctrine- you continually make ELEMENTARY MISTAKES. That's why everything's behind a curtain- to try to minimize the sunlight on the BASIC ERRORS. One of those "ten times" the phrase "see Jesus" wasn't said at all. ONE of those "ten times" the phrase "see Jesus" referred to us. The remaining EIGHT times were all in reference to ZACCHEUS, who wanted to see Jesus.

A) They were. B) It was not. lcm was walking around as if in a fog at the time. Even he called it that by 1989.

Dr Fu Manchu Grigori Rasputin Mycroft Holmes Jonathan Blair Bernard Day Chris Lewis Sir Felix Raybourne Georges Seurat Harry Cooper Lt Cdr Dick Raikes, RN Karaga Pasha John Preston Franz Vermes Gil Rossi Charles Highbury

Rearranging the deck chairs on the HMS Titanic didn't count as change, either. (Even without using string to arrange the chairs.)

Anyone who actually has something worthwhile to say, and an opportunity to address an audience- and you had that for a few years while people asked you to speak clearly and make your points- can address the audience and communicate CLEARLY. I've done that, and had people line up afterwards and wait to shake my hand. (Surprised the heck out of me- they'd just spend 90 minutes listening to me, and some wanted to continue for hours where I'd stopped. I finally had to beg off out of physical hunger.) So, you supposedly have something important to say. You've had decades to find how to phrase it. And you still have no end of excuses as to why you're not going to just get to the point. But that's anything BUT news now. You'll go on for paragraphs on some self-congratulatory diversion, but actually get to the point? No, you don't have time.