WordWolf

And yet, you reject the testimony of ONE eyewitness, and hold to the conviction that vpw had leveled with God Almighty in his final hours based on the testimony of ZERO eyewitnesses.

A poster here had spoken with someone who interacted a lot with vpw in his final weeks and especially his final hours. They passed along how, in the final few hours, vpw searched his memory actively, looking to find SOMETHING he'd done for which God would have disapproved, so that he could identify it, try to address it, and get his healing. He was convinced that he could be completely healed if only he could identify ANYTHING he'd done which would have displeased God. Either the man was acting through the last few hours of his life, or he really couldn't find any wrongdoing in his own life. If he was acting then, he was a fraud even through the final hours and minutes of his life. If he was sincere, then he looked back over decades of plagiarism, rape, molestation, drugging women, simony, displaying pornography to young folk (and occasionally minors), embezzling church funds for his own vices of alcohol and tobacco which actually killed him, and then said "I wonder what I could have done that would have displeased God?" Most of us who love God can usually point to something we've done which would have displeased God, and it would be something a LOT less minor, like not donating to the poor, or showing anger once to someone. Then again, this WAS a man of absolutes. When he discovered he had cancer, he claimed he'd previously never had a sick day in his life and had never taken an aspirin ever in his life. I find that very hard to swallow.

............

That should be it for about 4 more years. Nobody consulted me about calling US football "football" and the other one "soccer." It makes discussing it across languages even more difficult than it need be. France's nose got pushed worse out of joint because of Mbappe. In the last match, he scored all of their goals in regular time- 2 of them penalty kicks, one of them a regular goal he scored after crashing into Messi and taking possession of the ball. Once it went to a penalty shoot-out, I said France was in trouble, because Mbappe could only give them ONE of the necessary goals. (Not to mention it was impossible to cheat any kick in the shootout, with all eyes on the kicker and goalie, the VAR's cameras covering all possible shenanigans...) I was right. Mbappe went first and scored a goal, then Messi went and scored a goal. After that, Argentina's players kept scoring, and France's generally did not- thus the 4-2 result without the 5th kicker from either team brought out. When the awards were given out, Mbappe looked like he was being dragged out to accept his award. I thought that was ridiculous. His team won the previous World Cup. His team made the finals of this World Cup. His team made it to overtime, and then to the penalty kick shootout. Other than actually winning a second World Cup in a row, that's about the best result one could hope for. France had reason to celebrate making it to the Finals. Well, the problem was what Mbappe said before the World Cup. When asked about the other teams, he mentioned only the European teams as formidable. When someone asked about South America, he dismissed them and said he didn't think much of their players. Now, this came back to bite him for two reasons. One, his team actually lost to a South American team. Two, when he returns to work, he will return to professional play in Europe- alongside lots of South Americans scouted to join the European league because they were better than the Europeans they replaced. (By definition, teams scout the best players, so bringing in players from another continent says something about their quality.) I don't know how they will react- if they will react- but comments like that don't make for harmonious teams. Seriously, badmouth 1/4 of your team and see how much they're willing to work with you. I don't know about the next World Cup, but Argentina had a number of hot players this time around- Messi, Di Maria, Enzo Fernandez, Julian Alvarez, Mac Allister, and Paredes and Montiel surprised quite a few people in the last match, and that's not even counting the goalie (Emiliano Martinez.) Honestly, I can see not cheering for a team when they get the awards, but French fans were BOOING during the awards ceremony. Just cheer for Mbappe and then remain silent or something.

That said a lot. One of the things it said was that vpw was slow in learning what were the most recent copies extant. The average layman, as of 1942, could have learned better than that. (With the internet, we know a lot more than that.) He had the centuries wrong, and the languages wrong. "Aramaic primacy" has gone the way of the do-do because older resources have surfaced- in Greek, and older by more than a century. By pinning his hopes on the obscure "Aramaic first" movement, vpw added another layer of "only we have the secret answers"- but only did so at the expense of passing along ERROR to twi. Since this was before the internet, he neither cared nor thought they'd get caught teaching ERROR. Anyone foolish enough to lock their thinking into thinking vpw was correct in both century and language, exposes their deficiencies rather plainly. EVERYBODY knows better by now- at least, those who care and bother to spend more than a few seconds looking things up. Another thing it said was that "WE" can get to "thus saith the LORD" -and outlined the process how WE could get there. It was pretty straightforward. Anyone claiming vpw was the final word on things, that vpw was authoritative on things, who has the nerve to contradict him on the actual things- like how we can get to "thus saith the LORD"- well, hypocrisy is sometimes easy to find.

Ok, I should check the Orange Book myself and see what it says about the verses. Clear enough. 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'. "

All activity connected to pfal was organized to run at a profit. It wasn't enough that people who stuck around would tithe 10% of their income. It wasn't enough that they would be leaned on to give more- thus the made-up term "abundant sharing". It wasn't enough that they would be leaned on to give everything left over so they had no money for emergencies, saving up for anything, chances to invest (or buy a car or a house with cash since buying either with a lease was being deprecated) - thus the made-up term "plurality giving." Outside of twi/ex-twi circles, has anyone heard of a "church" or supposed religious group that SAYS to give them ALL the money beyond what you absolutely need to live on? I haven't, and I don't think any of you have, either. On top of that, the class itself was priced to pay for whatever books were included RETAIL. Since they were printed in-house, that's running at a profit. Plus, all the locations to run the class were donated by faithful twi'ers, so running an actual class was always done at a profit. Supposedly, the extra money was to cover the actual filming/recording. All of THAT was done in-house, and was covered pretty quickly because hundreds of copies of the films and tapes weren't being churned out, so the rest was all profit. The actual filming of pfal was done to avoid costs, also. vpw rented a small studio, then bought the furniture for the class and had the signs made in-house. As soon as the class was done, vpw returned the furniture for a full refund, saying he wasn't satisfied with it. The truth was, he swindled them out of their rightful money and never planned to keep the furniture past the filming. Now, if that wasn't a warning sign, I don't know what is. For that matter, hq was often run with the idea of getting the cheapest-priced item and making it work, even if that wasted a lot of effort. vpw used to buy used stuff from schools having auctions of old materials and so on, all just to save a few bucks, and this continued long after it would have been smart to invest in new machinery, decent furniture, etc. Only the things vpw handled personally were allowed to be new or good quality. (Unless you count the auditorium named after him, designed to be used for events on-grounds. It was smart to build such a facility, but all the frills were unnecessary.)

Mark Wedloe Roo John Dexter Slinky Lloyd Davis Michael Thorpe Johnny Stransel Billy Taft Robby Fielding Jody Larson Tim Oliver Willie Sharpe

Maybe so, but I got it from "Sir Cedric."

One musician's greatest claim to fame is probably that he's a member of a band he neither played for nor joined. It's not true. He joined the band and played for it, through their days as " Johnny and the Moondogs" and other names before they settled on the name they made famous. Then he was canned shortly before they became famous, replaced by a member of "Rory Storm and the Hurricanes." But, he did indeed play for them in their final name, before he was fired. Which musician was this?

That's it.

Yes. The edelweiss is a symbol of Switzerland. Making a song about national pride for AUSTRIA using the edelweiss means the movie team skimped on their research.

Well, in the past, she's auctioned off the name in secret, said that one of the letters in his name was "r" and said it wasn't about anybody in particular- which is a heck of a thing to say AFTER you've given letters in the name of a nonexistent person, and collected money for the name. Old rumors put it as either Mick Jagger (less likely) or Warren Beatty (more likely.) I'll go with WB.

Paul Bettany the Knight's Tale Heath Ledger

"Let me tell you how it will be"

If you hadn't picked the chorus, I think I would have been stumped.

Yes. Too easy?

Yes. "I'm Larry, this is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl." The Stratford Inn had a historical significance, but not one they'd hoped for. That was tricky when women came to celebrate its designation as a historical site- because their mothers had worked there, whatever it was at the time....

-This movie features a song with connotations of national pride. It was made up for the movie, and the country it was made up for doesn't really know the song. That's possibly because it uses a symbol a DIFFERENT country connects with connotations of national pride. -One actor was trying to get a sense of his character. So, he went to the Salzburg mountains to ask his nephew what he was like. According to the nephew, he was the most boring man he'd ever met. -The principal actress almost turned the role down. At first glance, she thought the role was too similar to her (eponymous) character in the film she had just finished. -When this film was first released on home video, it stayed on the charts for over 250 weeks, almost five years.

Tom Petty, and I THINK the title is "You Don't Know How It Feels."

I'm thinking of 2 possible actors. I'm going with "PETER O'TOOLE."

The Green Hornet Cameron Diaz The Mask

-In this show, there was a sort-of economy of names. Out of the ensemble, two of them- who appeared in the same scenes- had the same name. -One of the primary locations of the show turned out to have a history- during the time of the American Revolution, it was used as a house of ill-repute.

"Superman II."

I think it's cute that opposition to this thread is confined to "I refuse to read the thread or post a rebuttal on a thread whose subject interests me greatly, but I want to debate a factual point. Not any that actually matter, I want to call into question what year Mrs W said vpw first claimed the 1942 promise." Nothing on any significant point, not on anything that's beyond any reasonable refutation. Usually, that means the rest of the points are unassailable. Why else would someone FIXATE on the exact year vpw began expounding his lie, and not whether or not it was a lie, and why it's so obvious it's a lie? But this way, someone can PRETEND they refuted something of substance, and flee the thread, never acknowledging the rather obvious point that they're now basing their life on something PROVEN to be a lie. "I'd rather have an ugly truth rather than a pretty lie." - Me.