WordWolf

You were being cagey, and you really had nothing beyond THAT and were hiding THAT for a day and a half? We all knew this, whether some of us currently agree with it or not. That was all basic in twi, and some of it was basic Bible, which is why you don't have to go to ex-twi or twi to get any or all of that.

On top of that, he plagiarized the Amplified Bible when he posted "his" "literal translations according to usage." He claimed he'd "worked the Word" and came up with renderings that were word-for-word identical to the Amplified Bible. The most egregious example, IMO, was Philippians 4:13. vpw: "I am ready for anything and equal to anything through him who infuses inner strength into me." Word-for-word, that's in the 4:13 rendering in the Amplified Bible. Now, vpw would have you think it was a REMARKABLE COINCIDENCE that the phrasing was identical. However, nearly all of us see that as just ripping off their work and taking credit for it, aka "plagiarizing." Any of you who heard Acts 29's song with this as their chorus should remember it: "I am ready for anything and equal to anything through him who infuses inner strength into me. Yes, I am more than a conqueror, a real super-conqueror, and nothing will separate God's Love from me." If you go to Divinity School, specialize in preaching, and spend NO time on studying the Bible, you might be this much of a lightweight, also.

I've definitely heard this one before. But title and artist? How about "IN THE SUMMERTIME", by The Doors? Was I close? Did I get either right?

Hey, Human, since you got his song fair and square, why not post the next one as an example, so he can see what you meant? Properly, it's your turn.

vpw didn't use those versions, therefore Mike won't use them. The example of the NASB is particularly silly, because the one possible benefit of using the KJV or New KJV is the italics- and the NASB uses the italics. Moreover, since the vocabulary usage of the NASB is more standardized than that of the KJV (more often, if you see a word in English, it's translated from the same word in Greek/Hebrew as before), it's more useful when reading to understand the contents. I'm not sure if it was just complete ignorance of the NASB that led vpw to use the KJV only, but I suspect he preferred the 450-year old vocabulary of the KJV to that of a modern version like the NASB. With few fans of Elizabethan literature taking pfal (fans of Shakespeare, et al) vpw could more easily get away with mistakes based on the KJV and relying on its vocabulary even when what he said was factually incorrect. As a fan of Shakespeare, I'd found it irksome when people tortured the KJV English in twi, especially when a quick look at a concordance could expose the mistake. I think the one that bothered me most often was in the Intermediate class. When getting to Colossians 3:5 and the KJV said "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth", Earl said that the word "mortify" meant to "blow to smithereens." Ridiculous. As if Paul was referring to a mortar cannon which was invented millenia later. The KJV has a strong influence from the LATIN (like the Vulgate) because it draws from Tyndale's early efforts to go from Latin to English because that's the best he had. However, modern Bibles aren't hobbled the same way. Tyndale did good work with what he had, and the KJV was a fair accomplishment 450 years ago. So, what did "mortify" mean? Well, come on, anyone with a good vocabulary in English knows what a "mortician" is, and probably knows that "mortis" in Latin is "Death" "Mortify" meant "kill off". All of that would have been avoided by just checking a simple Greek-English Interlinear. That word "mortify" is the Greek word "necrosate." The root word is "NECROS." Again, if you have a decent vocabulary, you don't need to look up "necros" to know it means "death." It's used in many words in English. Doctors deal with necrotic tissue, Paul condemned necromancers in the Bible, etc. vpw made a number of ASSUMPTIONS based entirely on the KJV English, and taught them that way, even though a simple check of the Hebrew or Greek would have shown it was a mistake. In pfal, vpw spent MINUTES on the significance of the word "REPLENISH" in Genesis, when the Hebrew root word meant "FILL" and had NONE of the implications of "REPLENISH". If his doctrine was correct, it wasn't because the KJV used the word "replenish" as a poor translation from the Hebrew. (This has been discussed here, more than once, it's in lists of mistakes from pfal.) Don't be shocked if this is the only answer you get- or the answer is some vague HINTING there's a different answer that he never actually gives.

I think, every once in a while, it benefits the new people to see Mike. After all, they can see us, all having gotten on with our lives without vpw, twi, etc. Without Mike, there's no concrete example of what happens when you just put vpw and pfal in your brain and nothing else. Instead of being able to have an intelligent conversation with us about any of hundreds of topics, all Mike can do is his geek show- talk around things for pages and pages and claim he doesn't have time to post one clear paragraph, hint he knows something special but won't show anyone the special candy until they get in the van, etc. If nothing else, Mike's posts are very uplifting. After all, even the most wounded posters here can arrive, trying to understand how to rebuild their life in a healthy manner. Then they can see that their situation could be a lot worse- they could be forever doubling-down on the imaginary specialness of vpw, the imaginary specialness of pfal, the imaginary specialness of twi....... They've already come so far, and so, they can see they have indeed begun their recovery without having hit rock bottom. After all, rock bottom's here and posting!

Mike: "I suppose a lot of posters here would find the wording of the "HIDDEN Christ" just as repulsive as the absent Christ? I like them both." Rocky:"Why do you "suppose" anything about anyone? Why would you not simply pose the question, do any of the posters here find the expressions "HIDDEN Christ" or "absent Christ" repulsive, or otherwise believe they are inappropriate? If so, please explain the reason for your belief and/or feelings." WordWolf responds. It is only when Mike has IMAGINARY discussions on an IMAGINARY GSC that he actually gets to make points he likes. When he posts his faulty ideas on the real GSC, they get refuted. However, in his mind, he rewrites the discussions so that he "wins" all the time and refutes even the most unassailable logic. I mean, in his mind he rewrites twi materials, and in his mind he rewrites the discussions here. It's all of a piece. Otherwise, yes, he would actually DISCUSS. When we asked questions, he would ANSWER. Instead, it's post after post of OBFUSCATION, never getting to a point. Besides, if Mike ever actually POSTED his points, the readers could see that they were built on cotton candy. As long as he hides everything, and PRETENDS he's got something, someone (Mike, if nobody else) can imagine he's actually got SOMETHING.

Don't get your hopes up that Mike will speak plainly. If he did, you'd see his "special hidden" doctrines are not special at all. They're either constructed of suppositions, or plainly obvious and hardly unique to Mike. But as long as he play coy and never actually get anywhere, he can at least tell HIMSELF he's got something.

Correct! Aka "Triple -D". And yes, the earlier host was Bobby Flay.

Is it worth watching? I only remember it from the full-page ads on the back cover of comic books.

How about A SPACE TRAVESTY? (Something like 2050 A Space Travesty?) Leslie Nielsen in another starring role in a spoof.

It reminded me of a Johnny Cash song, but it's definitely not that song.

I liked Richard Griffiths in "King Ralph", also. Ok, this one, since we're past 3 days and I can look it up, I'm doing one link I haven't done before..... Max Von Sydow Flash Gordon Richard O'Brien (He's actually really well-known, in some circles, for one very specific movie he acted in (I think he also directed it.)

How about "Buckaroo Banzai and His Adventures Across the 8th Dimension"? (Buckaroo WHO?)

Name ANY to take the round. A) Guy Fieri invites the best of the best chefs in a single-elimination, winner-takes-all contest, each going one-on-one with another chef until one is left. Different challenges will affect each round. Two neutral food experts interview the chef during the cooking process, and describe the dish to the judging panel to ensure the panel has no idea who cooked what, preventing them from favoritism. B) 3-4 chefs are called into a parking lot set up as a kitchen. They have to get ingredients by stopping real customers leaving a food store and buy individual ingredients or the entire contents of their cart, sight unseen. They have to cook a successful dish in the provided time- and the time getting ingredients is part of that time! So, waiting for perfect ingredients can eat up all your cooking time (or get expensive in the early rounds when you can buy entire carts sight unseen.) C) The host of the show mentioned in B), now challenges chefs from all over the US to try to out-cook her, 3 at a time. D) The show sets up a kitchen in the middle of a suburban street, with houses on both sides. Contestants must pick a house, and get their ingredients from what the residents have on hand (yes, they're paid for all the stuff.) E) 3 chefs divide the pool of chefs into 3 teams for the season, each of them leading their team. Each episode, the chefs have to cook a dish that fits a description. Each episode, each team picks randomly, and ends up cooking in one of 3 kitchens. The top floor has high-tech, fancy appliances, the middle floor has regular restaurant kitchen appliances, and the bottom floor has appliances like a home cook. The ingredients for use come down and stop for TEN SECONDS for chefs to get ingredients- stopping at the top floor first, then the middle, then the bottom chefs get whatever is left. When it is time to plate, the moving platform stops first at the bottom floor, then the middle, then the top, again for TEN SECONDS. This show involves trying to find a chef of surpassing skill and potential. F) So you don't like shows about cooking food? How about cooking metal? This show (with at least one overseas version) has 4 weaponsmiths compete in their knife-making skills on-site, then the last 2 competitors go back to their home forges, and have a few days to produce a copy of a famous weapon. Their weapons are examined, and tested with violence, and a winner is chosen from the blades that survive the tests. One less dramatic test is the apple slice- comparing a line of apples to see which are sliced cleanly and which are split. One more dramatic test is the "bulletproof sword club." The resulting sword is set up, blade forward, and a single bullet is fired- resulting either in a split bullet or a shattered blade as the bladesmith enters the "Oh, my God, they shot my sword with a gun" club instead of the "bulletproof sword club." Viewers can learn all sorts of things about weapon- making, metal-forging, and related skills, as a panel of judges comments on the techniques as they're being used. One blade was disqualified because it was completely shaped by use of grinders and sanders, and not even a little by the process named in the show's title. G) Guy Fieri drives all over the place, to eat at little, local eateries with specialties, and publicizes them. H) Before Alex Guarnachelli (however it's spelled) tried it, a different chef brought in 2 chefs, then had them compete against each other for the right to challenge him one-on-one in cooking a dish of their choice. I) 2 chefs, Anne Burrell and a guest chef, attempt to teach a handful of people who are hopeless in the kitchen. The last 2 contestants make a full restaurant meal, with the better meal winning them a pile of cash.

Given how odd this sounds, if it's not some sort of adult movie, I'm going to guess "AMAZON WOMEN ON THE MOON."

The Aramaic interlinear that twi published showed the changed position- it was written as a question. Lamsa was never the expert in Palestinian Aramaic of the first century as he would hold forth- so his claim that this "would never" have been written as a question was without merit. As a rhetorical question, it carries the same meaning Lamsa wanted to claim- and accurately reflects the text. Other than that book showing the correct translation, I'm unaware of twi actually correcting anything, and I don't know what they say if someone asks. I DO know they tend to get very defensive if asked about things where someone has to admit even a small mistake, so I think the official policy is still "launch a personal attack on anyone who asks about this, and get evasive as to the actual answer." That's the experience most people got when asking about obvious errors, whether corrected or otherwise.

OldSkool: "Now flip the script and imagine how bad Mike would freak out if someone plagaraized wierwille and took his materials, rebranded them, claimed ownership, and claimed God almighty had chosen him over everone else incliding wierwille over the past 2000 years to teach all of it because it hadn't been known since the apostle Paul. " Mike: "I would rejoice if others heard the same truths, re-branded, and were in the same heavenly family with us. You have no idea how I think. That is because you are not willing to listen to me. You only look for ammunition in my words that you can shoot at me. " WordWolf responds: Mike, you've previously commented how it was a big deal how the pfal book copyrights had to be respected. You've made a big deal about ideas that lauded vpw to the skies and made a big deal about him getting all the credit to which you feel he is entitled. That's how you've claimed you thought PREVIOUSLY. Have you changed positions? It sounds like you have, but haven't told us- and blame us for thinking you're still holding your PREVIOUS position. We listened to you before and understood. Your insistence that people only read your posts for ammunition is unrealistic. It doesn't reflect reality. This is hardly news by now.

Mike: "I purposely do not copyright my writing, even my comedy and science and hippie-history writing. I think I do this for the same reason VPW never copyrighted the SNT teaching tapes, and the film class. I never saw a copyright notice in the film class until aroung 1982, and I was the Branch AV guy for many years. I am into the ideas." WordWolf responds. vpw made sure there were copyright notices on every book his "American Christian Press" printed, especially when it was materials with his name on them- allegedly with vpw as the author, as they said. vpw was very interested in asserting his copyrights on all of them. So, there's a disconnect. Why did vpw make sure ALL the print stuff had a copyright, but the audio tapes/ video tapes did not- until later? There's basically 3 possibilities. 1) vpw had some complicated reason where the completed, edited books should not be reproduced, but the tapes, often off-the-cuff, were supposed to be fair game for copying and that was actually intentional. 2) vpw had no idea that audio-video materials, like printed materials, were subject to copyright and could have/should have had copyrights asserted for them, whereas with the books, he'd known that for many decades. 3) God Almighty, for reasons known only to Him, told vpw to copyright everything in print from American Christian Press, but told vpw to leave copyright off of the audio tapes/ video tapes. I think the answer is obvious to ALMOST everyone. Mind you, if the whole intention was to inject pfal into the public by making it public domain, it was incredibly inconsistent because the collaterals had copyright from the beginning, so the printed pfal books were NEVER in the public domain. So, God Almighty was inconsistent in that, or vpw was inconsistent in that, or that was never the intention. I think the answer is obvious to ALMOST everyone.

I got to thinking about this with one poster, but, really, this thread is fair game for posters to post that they've changed previously-held positions, or left previous positions, or abandoned previously-held positions, and so on. So, it's open for all posters. However, I was thinking about all of this because of a specific poster. So, I shall get specific. Mike, you've previously held a number of positions on things that you may have changed or reversed. In the interest of finding out if we now agree on them, I'm asking for you outright IF you've changed positions, and, if so, on what you've changed. I've included a few examples I'm curious about, things you've previously espoused but may no longer claim. -vpw was "born with an overabundance of brains and brawn", was "OVERgifted", and "where he walked, the earth shook." - When Jesus returns, he will be holding a copy of the Orange Book and be teaching from it. -Jesus is "very interested in pfal." -God told vpw to plagiarize, and it's fine, because God said so, but it's wrong if other people plagiarize. -The alleged "1942 Promise" was legitimate, and God Almighty really made such a promise to vpw. That's a few things off the top of my head. Feel free to discuss any position on which you've changed. Please keep in mind, however, that until you mention you've changed, people will most likely hold you responsible for any position you've previously espoused, as if you still hold it.

It's been previously pointed out (by Raf) that people can and do change their positions over time, and it's sometimes important to find out when that's happened- especially when disagreeing with a position they have held. After all, if someone has reconsidered their position on something and no longer holds that position, it's silly to criticize them for CONTINUING to hold that position. If they're agreeing with you, what's the point of criticizing them for previously disagreeing with you? That's not constructive discussion, that's just venting. So, I was thinking about how people can change their positions on twi, vpw and so on, but not make any major announcements on having done so.

Mike: "This process is STILL going on, where people get massively blessed with the collaterals when they take the new TWI foundational class. They get to see the fruit in their lives as they put the content of the collaterals into their Bible reading and lives. " T-Bone: "Baloney! Are YOU omniscient and omnipresent? How do you know “this process” is still going on? “people get massively blessed” ?!?! But YOU just said you didn’t have the ability to look at the fruit in the lives of others! “blessed with the collaterals when they take the new TWI foundational class” Oh, so you’ve taken the new PFAL Today class? Also, please define “massively blessed” and describe what “fruit” is seen." WordWolf responds: And so, in Mike's mind, there's lots of new people taking the new pfal class, and getting "massively blessed." Mind you, he hasn't SEEN these people, but IN HIS MIND, there's lots of them. Mike: "Many thousands right this minute are thankful for PFAL and how it helped them. You folks missed this bus, but there is still another one you can catch. It's not too late. It will be too late someday." T-Bone: Baloney! “thousands right this minute” ? Are YOU omniscient and omnipresent? “You folks missed this bus, but there is still another one you can catch” …bus? Did you mean to say motorcoach? Who’s driving and who’s getting diddled in the back? WordWolf responds: Again, in Mike's mind, there's "thousands of people right this minute" who are thankful for pfal. He has not interacted with these "thousands", but in his mind, there's thousands.

WordWolf: "The only reason to think vpw is worthy of ANY respect is his own insistence that he was- and that's not very convincing to most people. " Mike: "Baloney !!! I looked at the good fruit first, and THEN I started to believe his claims. It occurred to me that I didn't have the ability to look at the fruit in HIS life, " WordWolf responds: Salami on your baloney. You had plenty of ability to look at the fruit in his life then, and you certainly can see as well as everyone else what fruit has been. We all know- and you might not admit- that if the exact same claims were made of anyone else, you would dismiss them completely. A minister, given to yelling at his congregation, known for plagiarizing virtually everything he teaches, and claiming he originated virtually all of it, addicted to alcohol and drinking it while teaching, addicted to tobacco and got cancer from all the tobacco, who has set up an elaborate social structure that facilitates him molesting and raping the female members of the congregation and sometimes drugs them first but always tells them God Almighty wants them to sexually service him the minister...... ....if this minister taught some good sermons and effective Bible..... ....and also claimed that God Almighty chose him uniquely out of all Christians for the past 2000 years.... you wouldn't believe his claim, and you wouldn't take him seriously. You skip over looking over the fruit in vpw's life- and actively discourage anyone looking at the fruit in vpw's life and call them names FOR looking at the fruit in vpw's life, because it doesn't match up with what you WANT to believe. Mike: "I looked at the good fruit first, and THEN I started to believe his claims. It occurred to me that I didn't have the ability to look at the fruit in HIS life, but in my life, and in the lives of my friends who took the class, the fruit was (and still is) abundant and good. " WordWolf responds: Mortadella on your baloney. If anyone spoke about ANOTHER Bible teacher, and that teacher plagiarized all their material from others, and someone insisted that they were a quality teacher and quality Christian because they were benefiting from what they'd learned... ...we all know what you'd say to that person, who said the same thing about any teacher EXCEPT WIERWILLE.

FYI, "vpw"s first class- the clone of BG Leonard's CTC "Gifts of the Spirit" class was called "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today." In the thread "vp and me in Wonderland", we discussed the odd phrases and why it looked like RR went after vpw and both of them adultered together. Later, RD posted independently that that is what had happened, on some occasions. So, vpw wasn't actually admitting anything, but his exact phrasing pointed to what he meant to conceal. According to God Almighty, adultery is wrong. Adulterers are not recommended to be leaders. This is rather obvious. But a few people think that all of that is true EXCEPT FOR wierwille who gets a pass, because of the 1942 promise- which was complete bunk from the first to the last. The only reason to think vpw is worthy of ANY respect is his own insistence that he was- and that's not very convincing to most people.