WordWolf

"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.

I don't think he can. He just proved my points better than I would have expected.

This sequel had a lot of actors really give it their all. One actor became famous in some circles for how far to go for a scene. In one moment, he received frustrating news. He kicked something in frustration, then sank to his knees as he screamed in utter frustration. It was fantastic method acting. And the scene could not be re-shot with a retake because he broke his toe with the kick- then added that literal pain into the scene. Another moment- which appeared in the same movie- this actor chipped a tooth during filming. He said to just glue it in place and finish the scene. They stopped the scene and got him a dentist instead. This sequel- and its sequel- were also movies where a few actors played more than 1 role. In fact, there was 3 different cameos in 3 different movies of one actor, but that shouldn't count. It's another movie where some actors passed the time waiting for a helicopter by playing "Cup"- a game they "invented" that involves keeping a plastic disposable cup in the air by hitting it. For a time, you could get an official "Cup" cup by contacting them, supposedly. (I think they weren't kidding.)

BTW, I'm curious if this "the Bible is good for something" business represents an ACTUAL change from "the Bible is 'unreliable fragments' and 'tattered remnants' " and Mike's actually changed his position to something healthier, or if it's all smokescreen and Mike still believes the Bible's "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remnants" and he's intentionally lying to tell people what they want to hear. I won't know because, when I asked Mike if he's actually changed position, he tried to GASLIGHT me and pretend he never badmouthed the Bible before. At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if Mike can't remember he ever said that, has changed his position, and believes he now, retroactively, has ALWAYS had this new position. His grasp of what the Bible says, the collaterals say, and what posts here say have always been tenuous at best.

"How badly do you want to know these things you ask me of? How much work and time will you put into implementing the answers? Would it be too much for me to ask you to take the initiative in proving to me your sincerity in wanting to learn? How can you assure me I wont be wasting my time explaining all these things to you in text form here in public? " Over 20 years, and he still is either unable or unwilling to speak plainly- and he's been offered numerous chances to explain with whatever time he needed or at whatever length he needed. There has ALWAYS been an excuse, there will always be an excuse- because, by the light of day and with full transparency, he's got SQUAT. 20 years of CLAIMING he's got something, and still nothing. That's someone relying on a dog-and-pony show to make up for the lack of actual substance and content.

"We can talk about all this in Private Messaging or on voice phone if you would like." JAL always wanted to take things off GSC and to the phone as well. Once he did, it was non-stop commercials for JAL's books, classes, etc, and all actual DISCUSSION had ended. So, by now, this looks like an invitation to enter the nice van to get a lift to where the REALLY good candy is kept.

No.

James Tiberius Kirk?

"Hey, do it now! Hey, once I was a boogie singer, playin' in a rock-and-roll band."

No.

already AT Starbucks but you couldn't see him- hidden Some people can "never admit an error is an error." If someone takes pride in that approach, they can't improve much, because they can't admit an error and move on- they need to construct elaborate cages of lies to preserve the original error- which was worthless to anyone else.

This sequel had a lot of actors really give it their all. One actor became famous in some circles for how far to go for a scene. In one moment, he received frustrating news. He kicked something in frustration, then sank to his knees as he screamed in utter frustration. It was fantastic method acting. And the scene could not be re-shot with a retake because he broke his toe with the kick- then added that literal pain into the scene. Another moment- which appeared in the same movie- this actor chipped a tooth during filming. He said to just glue it in place and finish the scene. They stopped the scene and got him a dentist instead.

Colonel Steve Trevor/Steve Howard????