WordWolf

Thank you for confirming that even you consider the instructions accompanying the class to have been vpw's instructions. We've previously brought up that we were told immediately to read "Christians Should Be Prosperous" once that book was added to the pfal curriculum, and we were told- different people in different parts of the country in different decades- to spend several months reading nothing but pfal books. Those instructions weren't part of the taped class because those books didn't EXIST when the tapes were taped. But vpw gave the orders, and that's how it was. As we all knew and now you've confirmed you know.

Mike, you characterized John the Baptizer as "a weirdo." When asked why, you responded with this- which does NOTHING to actually address the question. What's your criteria for classifying John the Baptizer as "a weirdo"? As for my sister, she could use interaction with someone as moral as John. He, if he were alive and working on his ministry now, would have no time for dating. So, why'd you call John the Baptizer "a weirdo", then duck the question when asked why, Mike?

JT was also around pretty early, from not long after vpw hijacked the hippies. Apparently, they recruited him. JT was quoted back in "The Way-Living in Love".

Lamsa wrote it that way. Lamsa was wrong. It's only considered like that among the "Aramaic primacy" fringe element out there. vpw's adoption of "Aramaic primacy" solely on the basis of being exotic and new and fringe was independent of the truth. After thousands of hours of work, the twi research team, sweating over Aramaic texts, ended up with different results than Lamsa. Under "Aramaic primacy", that's not supposed to happen. "Aramaic primacy" is error.

No. This character is definitely not British, no matter who is cast to play him. Julius Caesar's not British, either, but a lot of Brits have played him.

Leonard Whiting Udo Kier Robert Foxworth Colin Clive Jonny Lee Miller Samuel West Raul Julia Kenneth Branagh Aden Young Peter Cushing Alec Newman James McAvoy Cedric Hardwicke Ralph Bates Barrett Oliver Charlie Tahan Patrick Bergin Michael Bell Thomas Kretschmann David Anders Jeff B. Davis Harry Treadaway Benedict Cumberbatch

The last thing about the cloak was something from the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. "Now, shivering in some gloomy cell under the Palace, or it may be on the rocky floor of the Tullianum, with the wintry nights coming on, he bethinks him of the old cloke and asks Timothy to bring it with him.’ He quotes also the letter of Tyndale, the translator of the English Bible, from his prison in the damp cells of the Vilvoorde: ‘I entreat your Lordship, and that by the Lord Jesus, that, if I must remain here for the winter, you would beg the Commissary to be so kind as to send me, from the things of mine which he has, a warmer cap … I feel the cold painfully in my head.… Also a warmer cloke, for the one I have is very thin.… He has a woollen shirt of mine, if he will send it. But most of all … my Hebrew Bible, Grammar and Vocabulary, that I may spend my time in that pursuit. William Tyndale.’" In comparable situations, relatively modern men have requested a warm cloak/overcoat. If Paul was a man, a living, breathing, real man, surely he had use for a warm overcoat as well. With Tyndale, it's easy to see, but somehow, all the rules are off when it comes to people in the Bible- they aren't believed to react how a normal person would in the exact same circumstance. OVER-complicating, OVER-thinking, is a side-effect of always seeking some OCCULTED meaning, some SECRET meaning, when a normal read renders everything plain.

"What about Paul's cloak?" KJV II Timothy 4:13 "The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments." NASB II Timothy 4:13 "When you come, bring the overcoat which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments." What about Paul's cloak? Elliott's Commentary for English Readers: "The cloke that I left at Troas.--The apparently trivial nature of this request in an Epistle containing such weighty matter, and also the fact of such a wish on the part of one expecting death being made at all, is at first a little puzzling. To explain this seemingly strange request, some have wished to understand by "the cloke" some garment St. Paul was in the habit of wearing when performing certain sacred functions: in other words, as a vestment; but such a supposition would be in the highest degree precarious, for nowhere in the New Testament is the slightest hint given us that any such vestment was ever used in the primitive Christian Church. It is much better to understand the words as simply requesting Timothy, on his way, to bring with him a thick cloak, or mantle, which St. Paul had left with a certain Carpus at Troas. Probably, when he left it, it was summer, and he was disinclined to burden himself in his hurried journey with any superfluous things. Winter was now coming on, and the poor aged prisoner in the cold damp prison, with few friends and scant resources, remembered and wished for his cloak. It is just such a request which the master would make of his disciple, who, knowing well the old man's frail, shattered health, would never be surprised at such a request even in an Epistle so solemn. Then too St. Paul, by his very wish here expressed, to see Timothy, as above discussed, hopes against hope that still a little while for work in the coming winter months was still before him, though he felt death was for him very near; no forger of the Epistle had dreamed of putting down such a request." ================== Was it a cloak/overcoat, or some bookcase? cloak φαιλόνην (phailonēn) Noun - Accusative Masculine Singular Strong's 5341: A mantle, cloak. By transposition for a derivative probably of phaino; a mantle. Nearly every version seems to have it-correctly- as a cloak/overcoat (for the modern reader who isn't sure what a "cloak" is). Expositor's Greek New Testament. "τὸν φελόνην: The φελόνης, or φαιλόνης, by metathesis for φαινόλης, was the same as the Latin paenula, from which it is derived, a circular cape which fell down below the knees, with an opening for the head in the centre. (So Chrys. on Php 2:30; Tert. De orat. xii.). The Syriac here renders it a case for writings, a portfolio, an explanation noted by Chrys., τὸ γλωσσόκομον ἔνθα τὰ βιβλία ἔκειτο. But this is merely a guess suggested by its being coupled with βιβλία and μεμβράνας." Cambridge Bible For Schools and Colleges: "13. The cloke] Vulg. ‘penulam.’ The oldest use of the word is traced back beyond the Latins nearly to the time of Alexander the Great, in a fragment of a Doric poet, Rhinthon (Julius Pollux Onomast. vii. 60). Hence the Latin must have adopted it from the Greek, not vice versa. The Roman paenula was a travelling cloak, long, and thick, and sleeveless, made generally of wool, sometimes of leather. Cf. Mart. xiv. 145 paenula gausapina, xiv. 13 paenula scortea." So, those who know the word translate it a cloak, and there's some SPECULATION by those that do NOT know the word that it's some sort of book-case or other container for a book.

BTW, his idea of "seed of the serpent" never worked on paper, and I was aware of that from my first pfal. First of all, they've supposedly been around long before John the Baptist and Jesus, but they're a counterfeit of the post-Pentecost experience. Second, they indicate a "PERMANENT" placement of a devil inside a person, as in it's imprisoned in the person and can't leave until the person dies. That's an enormous jump to make- and all of it without any Scriptural justification. As for everyone he disliked being possessed, none of them evidenced any behavior like seen in the Bible- having no ability to think without a devil taking over, attempted suicide and self-harm becomes routine, etc.

BTW, there have been some threads about lcm in the past. Here's 2 of them. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/9753-martindale-as-wierwilles-heir/ https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/6468-who-was-l-craig-martindale/

That's the same victor paul wierwille who went to Haight-Ashbury to hijack the Christian hippies of the House of Acts to be his sales force for pfal. While he was there, he spoke privately with J1m D00p. vpw asked J1m what it was like to be at an orgy. J1m mentioned having arrived at one once, leaving quickly. While they were on this subject- which vpw continued discussing, which made J1m uncomfortable- vpw said this on the subject of ORGIES and PARTICIPATION IN ORGIES. "You know, that's all available." He rationalized this by quoting I Corinthians 7:1, which says "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. "He said that if God had not wanted it available, 7:1 would have said "best" and not "good." So, that was how vpw told J1m that God Almighty was all right with ORGIES and PARTICIPATION IN ORGIES. J1m disagreed and said he was glad he was free of that whole scene. He later wondered about the incident, and thought he must have been mistaken somehow in what vpw had said, since it was so obviously and blatantly wrong, to say the least. So, don't think those are isolated statements= in the mindset of vpw, it was all of one piece to say God Almighty was ok with participation in orgies, and sex with someone other than your spouse, and molesting the flock (he also had no problem drugging them, but I'm not aware of any justification he used for that.)

It was taught in detail. It was broken down with examples. EB had a bunch of recordings of TIP, and played them to illustrate. In the example of one (the "muck and mire" one), he pointed out the interpretation was MUCH longer, and supposedly pointed out where the speaker had interpolated his own thinking into the translation. In another example, he counted out on his fingers, pointing out the interpretation had the same number of natural breaking points and the same overall time as the "tongue."

What's so shocking about an IC syllabus? If you took any level of pfal, it came with a syllabus. The only class I took in twi that didn't come with a syllabus (I didn't take ALL the classes) was the CFS class, which had 2-pages for a 7-session class.

Just to be clear..... It was the Intermediate Class. Rev E@rl B taught that, with a brief introduction by vpw. Before someone jumps in and says that this means it wasn't vpw who made the mistake, vpw signed off on 100% of everything in that class. If any segment had been less than 100% what he wanted, you KNOW he would have had it re-filmed- as many times as needed until he found it exactly what he wanted. So, either vpw taught him that, and E@rl passed that along, or EB taught it and vpw reviewed it and said, "That's fine. Print it."

You don't have to post that big a quote in the first try. Some of us can get that from a MUCH smaller quote. This is the Grateful Dead's "TOUCH OF GREY", off of "In The Dark", which was probably their biggest commercial success in terms of album sales or hit singles.

The Hunger Games Woody Harrellson Doc Hollywood

I was giving the others a chance to chime in. I had it from Peter Venkman's "Back off man, we're scientists." "GHOSTBUSTERS."

2. Making up words based on how they sound in the King James does not work. Colossians 3:5a "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; " Intermediate class: "What does 'mortify' mean? It means to blow it to smithereens." No, you're confusing "mortify" with a "mortar", a modern artillery weapon that was completely unknown in Paul's time. The KJV "mortify" is related to the latin word "mortis", which is "death", as any "mortician" could tell you. The Greek word for "mortify" there is "nekrosate". "Nekro" is the Greek prefix meaning "death." It's used in English as well- "necromancer" is one word you can even find in the KJV. 3. Translating from language to language doesn't work like the Intermediate class states. We're told the translations should match in exact number of natural breaking points, approximate number of words, and approximate time of speech. That may "work" with "interpretation of tongues", mainly because it's what's expected. In real life, with real languages, that can be very different. Greek and German, for example, are very compact languages. Translating to and from one of those to a "Romance" (Latinate) language will completely break the rules set out in the intermediate class. If you ever get the chance, catch the "I Love Lucy" episode, "Paris At Last". Towards the end, Lucy -who only speaks English- has to explain what's happened to a French Police Sargeant. The Sargeant calls on one of his officers who speaks French and German, and a lost tourist who speaks German and Spanish. With Ricky there (who speaks Spanish and English), the sargeant can ask his questions in French, and they can be translated to German, Spanish, then English, and Lucy's responses can be translated back the same way. The German step is INCREDIBLY short, especially compared to the French and the Spanish preceding it and following it. (They're all grammatically-correct translations that correctly translate what's being said, so that's not the fault of bad translating or bad writing.)

Leonard Whiting Udo Kier Robert Foxworth Colin Clive Gordon "Sting" Sumner Samuel West Raul Julia Kenneth Branagh Aden Young Peter Cushing Alec Newman James McAvoy

No. Just because Branagh is on the list is no guarantee the answer involves Shakespeare.

Got it in one!

https://web.archive.org/web/20030713171917/http://www.livingepistlessociety.org/10Blue2.htm https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/4227-actual-errors-in-pfal/ Here's some optional reading for the curious and those arriving late.

17. It often contains errors that are the byproduct of pretending that the over 400-years old, obsolete King James Version is authoritative in aiding our understanding, as if the KJV word usage was consistent within itself and consistent with modern usage. Probably the most obvious of those errors was hanging an entire doctrine on the KJV usage of the word "replenish" in Genesis 3, when the Hebrew word from which it was taken should be translated "fill" and not "replenish." However, since this error matched what vpw wanted it to say, he went with it. Furthermore, "throughly" is an archaic word that DOES mean "thoroughly" and there is NO DIFFERENCE between their definitions- even though vpw made up an explanation of their differences. 18. II Peter 1: 20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. =========================== vpw made a big deal out of these verses meaning we aren't to do any "private interpretation"- complete with his own, made-up explanation of what that supposedly meant. However, these verses explained the ORIGIN of the verses- they didn't show up because someone sat in a corner and decided to write something on his own, but with input from God Almighty directing him. There's nothing in them about how we are to approach the Bible. [For those arriving late, I'm just repeating points that were posted over 20 years ago in both examples, and not by me originally.]

This show had an organization: the Nation Organization of Men Against Amazonian Mastery- abbreviated "NO MA'AM," and fans who signed up for it on a national registry! Plans to spin it off as its own show fell through.

Leonard Whiting Udo Kier Robert Foxworth Colin Clive Gordon "Sting" Sumner Samuel West Raul Julia Kenneth Branagh Aden Young