WordWolf

Tools-AddOns-Extensions. There's thousands of "AddOns"/"Extensions" to add features to FireFox. Everyone's got their favorites. If you want to add security, it's worth the effort to get to learn to use NoScript. AdblockPlus, once set once, will screen out ads, and you can add more things for it to screen out for you. Download Helper, DownThemAll, FlashGot, MediaPirate add downloading features, as does DownloadManagerTweak. Flashblock stops Flash animation from running until you click on the button that replaces it. This makes pages load faster, cuts download bloat, and trims out distracting, blinking spots on pages. (Add this to NoScript and there's another layer preventing automatic Flash.) IETab allows you to simulate IE use on a page, so you won't need to open IE again except to download Windows Updates. ;) ImageZoom allows you to zoom on any image. NukeAnythingEnhanced allows you to remove any object from your screen. Redirect Remover allows you to go straight to the page at the end of a redirect, and skip the pages in between. There's more, but those I actually recommend.

Margaret Mc Donald keeps getting blamed for doctrines she never spoke, and Darby keeps getting blamed for passing along doctrines he never taught, based on the doctrines Margaret Mc Donald never spoke. That aside, there is nothing in Scripture that says "the Kingdom of God is different than the Kingdom of Heaven." Rather, the terms are used interchangeably. It's foolish people who have claimed they meant 2 different things. vpw photocopied Bullinger, but Bullinger was not inerrant, and in this instance, was completely wrong- although he could really put together a flowery claim that he was right.

He did a fine job in both the episode "Space Seed" and "Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan." Some often-deleted scenes show his character (in "Space Seed") to be rather clever and manipulative, showing he's more dangerous than he appears. He will be missed. Of course, I also miss his "Fantasy Island". (And the other one, for that matter, but this is about him.) Yes to all that. Steve! is up.

It's a fundamental error in both YOUR theology and in vpw's theology. If you really want to discuss it, make a new thread, and I will gladly break it down in all its glory. In fact, since it's a fundamental error of vpw's theology, I'd appreciate a chance to highlight it. Instead, I'll be expecting you to mislabel it "unjustified criticism", blowing it off, pretending I never said it, and declaring victory a few months later. Feel free to surprise me. Now we get to the issue. Let's posit a theoretical church- a formal local organization with a building and a congregation. They have an official name, and an official set of rules. They will, perforce, begin with SOME set of rules, SOME standard. That's the nature of organizations. How AUTHORITATIVE is this? Perhaps I have an advantage over you in having been involved in drafting rules for an organization, interpreting standing rules for an organization, and AMENDING standing rules for an organization. Groups that cover all their bases make a notation in their practices, to the effect that anything they did not include will default to a generic set of rules like Roberts Rules of Order (specifying the edition.) That allows them to encounter things they never considered, and bring in SOME sort of rule to operate by. Adopting a set of rules is necessary for an organization- we agree on this. We disagree on the ROLE of such a set of rules. Adopted rules are not GUARANTEED to be the PERFECT set of rules for that group. That's why all formal constitutions and bylaws include a set of rules to cover how to CHANGE the set of rules. That's true in the US Constitution, and many other places, some of them having adopted them from the US Constitution. To have an UNCHANGING set of rules in an organization, a set of rules that CAN'T ever change, will, in the LONG term, enforce conformity- there is ONE set of rules and any thinking that doesn't line up is discouraged or PUNISHED, depending on the group and the specifics. To have an UNCHANGING set of rules in an organization, a set of rules that CAN'T ever change, will, in the LONG term, enforce increasing problems as external events are unable to be adapted to. It's like having an animal like the dodo, and introducing hunters with guns to shoot them down. If the dodo can't change- and the dodo can't (certainly it DID not) - it's going to be wiped out. Its UNCHANGING aspect guaranteed that external change would erode it. I am a person who says that rules are good. (Try driving through an area with lots of cars and no TRAFFIC LIGHTS.) I am a person who says that rules, policies and procedures must be INTERPRETED based on the situation. That's why this country has courts of law, where a professional expert (an arbitrator or a judge) interprets the application of laws, what they say concerning a specific situation. Some laws work for a time, and then it becomes necessary to abolish them or annul them. There's laws on the books concerning the behavior of the drivers of automobiles that concern horses. A driver is supposed to stop at a crossroads and fire a shot into the air to ensure carriages and riders are aware he is approaching. This is on the books as a law- except where it's been removed since it's a bad idea to do this NOW. Rules are a good idea, but I hold they are inferior to the people they are written for. In fact, I consider that to be one of the fundamental differences between YOUR approach on life, and MY approach on life. I hold that the law is for the people and less important than the people, and I think you hold the Rule to be more important than the people, and the people are less important than the Rule.

Confusing ALL of life with precisely calculable things like Math, Physics and Chemistry is a pretty consistent error of the twi system. That's why things like "you should believe God and trust God" was transformed into "If you decide that you'll be dead by this time next year, God would have to change the Laws of the Universe to stop you". It's also a common quibble with the "Social Sciences" and even the Biological sciences, since there's elements of UNPREDICTABILITY in dealing with both. Some people with narrow minds dismiss Psychology and Sociology as fields of study, since they can't be calculated to decimal places like the "hard sciences." There's no "one rule" for either Psychology or Sociology. I'm sure some will say that means they are "confusion". That, of course, will either indicate a bias, or a rank ignorance, on their behalf. *** You opined it on another thread. Your opinion that "this is new learning for most" was a blatant falsehood and a blanket insult. That you're unable to see the difference between Physics and Chemistry, and the things of God IS a "101" level of error. Even vpw himself knew the difference SOMETIMES. He asked what laboratory you could take "love" to and measure it. "As I said before, a young man in love with a lady. He can't take that love, bring it to a laboratory, stick it under a Bunsen Burner and come out with 'hot love.' You just don't get it that way, I suppose." (For those paying attention, the Bunsen Burner would go under the 'love' in this example. I'm considering this a simple slip of the tongue, and including it in the interest of accuracy.) Oh, and since our advocate of a supposed single unchanging source of truth, a supposed single unchanging source of rules for faith and practice, himself DOES NOT HAVE ONE EITHER, I consider this discussion rather limited.

"Thank you, Lads." "We've got to get Franklin out of there." "You've changed the resonator array... only three phase inverters..." "You were saying earlier that you were on your way to the Norpin Colony when you had a warp engine failure..." "That's right. We had an overload in one of the plasma transfer conduits. The Captain brought us out of warp... we hit some gravimetric interference and then there it was, as big as life..."

There's two entirely separate issues. A) The sins of a teacher B) Whether or not the teachings had merit Now, it is a tiresome old chestnut that about 3-4 posters consistently claim (suggest, insinuate and imply when not stating it outright- technically, this was another insinuation) that other posters claim that the 2 issues are only one issue- that the teachings turn to dust automatically as the result of the teacher being a poor example of a Christian. Few people IF ANY are saying that. This has previously been cooked up as a fiction stated "you're saying wierwille sinned, and therefore did no good." That's been shown to be an invention of those who never held that position- we had a poll and NOBODY took that position. Here's how it is. It's rather simple- for those people who don't want to grossly distort the positions other people hold. B) Do the teachings have merit? Whether the teachings have merit is a matter reserved to discussion of the material of the teachings. We've discussed a number of them. People have said the following: "If you put it down and look at Scripture without twi, what's true and reliable will still be true and reliable. Giving up the intellectual hobbling of oneself by limiting oneself EXCLUSIVELY to the limitations of any ONE teacher or method is a good thing. So, put it aside for a while and try thinking for yourself a while. Evaluate the works of other Christians. Spend time among Christians with skills you're unfamiliar with. Read it for yourself. What is of God will abide." That's a sensible approach for anyone who's not afraid to think for themself. "When examined, some of it is worth keeping, and significant portions of it are error. Drop whatever is error, which is significant." That's fine for anyone who doesn't require any belief system to be 100% free of error as if it was given by God. (That means only a tiny handful of posters should have a problem with it.) "I distrust whether any material taught by any person who has dedicated large swaths of his life to sin and lusts should be trusted at all." That's a sensible precaution when approaching material. That's a few positions-there are of course others. ===================== Now, discussing the sins of wierwille, we have a few positions that have been represented as well. 1) "Wierwille hardly ever sinned, and was a fine, upstanding Christian." Only the most sheltered, mentally-inbred ex-twi'ers still hold that position. As people begin to look at all the eyewitness testimony, the witness accounts, at the official releases from twi, that position is generally discarded as completely untrue. 2) "vpw sinned quite a bit, but it didn't affect his doctrine, policies, practices, etc." That's held by a minority of people. It's the default for people who want to believe the first position, but reality has prevented them. 3) "vpw sinned quite a bit, and it affected his doctrine, policies, practices, etc, quite a bit." Last poll, 1 in 5 polled held this position. Why would this position have any merit? How could the sins of a teacher affect his doctrine, his policies, his practices? Well, to go by what vpw HIMSELF said, someone can practice error. After a while, if they continue to practice error, then they begin to make a doctrine of it. If that person then begins teaching, that person will speak practical errors, and doctrinal errors. 4) "vpw sinned a lot, and it affected all aspects of his ministry, in greater or lesser ways." Last poll, 60% of the posters held this position. It differs from the previous position in a matter of degree in how MUCH sin, and how much effect it had. How could the sins of a teacher affect his doctrine, his policies, his practices? Well, to go by what vpw HIMSELF said, someone can practice error. After a while, if they continue to practice error, then they begin to make a doctrine of it. If that person then begins teaching. that person will speak practical errors and doctrinal errors. (I repeated myself because I've had people skip over an explanation stated once, and pretend it wasn't spoken at all. Now if anyone wants to pretend it doesn't exist, they have to be more overtly dishonest.) 5) "vpw did no good, but that's not because he sinned, it's because he was 100% fraud." Lat poll, 10% of posters held this one. If one doesn't believe vpw was anything BUT a fraud, then there's no reason to think his teachings or practices would be of benefit, except by accident. ===================== Now then, Do the sins of the teacher "negate" the truths in a teaching? NO. IF there are truths in a teaching, a teacher's sins don't "NEGATE" them. However, one's BEGGING THE QUESTION in this in the first place- by presupposing that the teaching had truths, AND one is misrepresenting what others say by using the word "NEGATE" (the Strawman.) Thus, it's a loaded-and dishonest- reply to legitimate discussion. Now then, do the sins of the teacher "AFFECT" a teaching? According to vpw, they do so. He said "the Correction Epistles" were designed to correct the doctrinal error found after they made a doctrine of the practical error they practiced. Could this have any relevance to vpw's teachings? Some would point out he soft-pedaled the issue of sin with Scripture many times- like downgrading sin to "broken fellowship" (a CONSEQUENCE of sin). Most would point out that comments like "technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king" would be an example of something from the mouth and pen of vpw that specifically was an error that was the result of the Practical error turned Doctrinal error in vpw's life. He downgraded sins of the flesh in his own MIND (to legitimize or soften the sinful PRACTICES he practiced) and in the process, made a DOCTRINE of it, and taught that doctrine. That's a fast example of one of vpw's sins "AFFECTING" a teaching. If he says that in passing in 2 hours of material, does that mean the entire 2 hours is useless? NO- and NOBODY was saying it was. (If "the sins of the teacher NEGATED the truths of a teaching", then they would say so. This claim was an invention of those who made up an imaginary contrary position just so they could object to it and pretend they were being reasonable. Or, in other words, a Strawman.) ========== So, what do the posters here say? Generally, they say "If we knew the 1942 promise and snowstorm were inventions of vpw, and he was completely fraudulent in his claims of selection by God, we certainly would have examined his teachings more closely, his practices more closely, and been MUCH slower to give him 'the benefit of the doubt.' " A question still remains, however..... If, as some people seem to want to believe (but seem slow to come right out and say), that "vpw could sin quite a bit, but that had no effect on his teachings, doctrines, programs, etc", then why do they engage in lengthy processes of distraction when vpw's sins come up? Why is it not a matter of "yes, he sinned a lot. That doesn't matter at all"? Why the efforts to attempt to rehabilitate the reputation of a man who broke the law when he plagiarized and deceived others, broke the law when he drugged and raped women as well as violated his marriage vows and his responsibility as a pastor, who drank and smoked DAILY while criticizing the Corps for lacking discipline, who acquired all sorts of creature comforts at the expense of God's people? If his sins really mean NOTHING to you, why the smokescreen and pretend they don't exist? That claim was made in response to THIS post.... And a concise, honest reply to the attempt to change the subject:

Please fork the side-discussion. I think one poster may have been TRYING to push the thread into Soap Opera.

In many cases, vpw lifts Bullinger word-for-word. In other cases, vpw lifts Bullinger concept-for-concept. If there were no Bullinger, there would be no "Are the Dead Alive Now", no Orange Book, and the White Book would be thinner. Mind you, vpw also lifts Bullinger's MISTAKES. The claim that "God directed vpw to plagiarize all the correct stuff from Bullinger" ignores that vpw lifted errors that sounded good. One obvious example is "the kingdom of heaven" vs "the kingdom of God". Bullinger gave a detailed explanation of their differences in the Bible. vpw lifted his detailed explanation of their differences in the Bible. Both were wrong-in the Bible, the terms were interchangeable, and still are.

This is new to you. If you'd been exposed to 5 or more years of posts like this, it would be less shocking.

Well, you're incorrect, in that you're judging his statements based on a single source- the pfal syllabus- and pretending that was the SOLE source of comments from vpw. As has been pointed out before (by HCW), some books were transcripts of vpw speaking, that were then EDITED by people better at writing than vpw. Don has made this same point the other day. vpw said them lots of times, lots of ways. We all heard them. Pretending you somehow missed them is silly. Well, OJ pleaded 100% absolutely not guilty, so....

Actually, the order was, bring them where vpw was going to abuse them (office, motorcoach, whatever), THEN drug them, not the other way around. He did this to enough people that we've been able to put together a modus operandi for his criminal acts.

I've been trying to come up with the details of some episode. I'm not sure, but it might have been one of those famous Orbs that transported Kira back in time to Terak Nor when it was still an ore-processing plant. She met her mother- and Dukat had claimed her mother had been a "comfort-woman" to some Cardassian officer or something. That's the best I can do for now.

*snickers* I miss Tony Randall.

Of course you are! Of course you did! Good DAY, sir! Here's how the quotes went.. "I've just decided to switch our Friday schedule to Monday, which means that the test we take each Friday, on what we learned during the week, will now take place on Monday, before we've learned it. But, since today is Tuesday, it doesn't matter in the slightest." Charlie's teacher. (My favorite quote from the movie.) "No, no, don't speak--for some moments in life there are no words." Wonka, to Mike Teevee's mom, when she went incoherent after the incident with her son/ "We must remember there are many more important things, many more important things . . . off hand, I can't think of what they are, but I'm sure there must be something." The television news anchor, discussing what happens after the 5th ticket will be found. "So shines a good deed in a weary world." Wonka at the movie's climax. "That's right, you don't know because only I know. If you knew and I didn't know then you'd be teaching me instead of me teaching you, and for a student to be teaching his teacher is presumptuous and rude. Do I make my self clear?" "Yes, sir." Charlie's teacher again. "Is it my soul that calls upon my name?" "Oh, you should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about." "The suspense is terrible. I hope it'll last." "Where is fancy bred? In the heart, or in the head?? "99...44...100 percent pure." "Across the desert lies the promised land." "All I ask is a tall ship and a star to sail her by." 'Round the world and home again, that's the sailor's way!" "A small step for mankind, but a giant step for us." "Invention, my dear friends, is ninety-three percent perspiration, six percent electricity, four percent evaporation, and two percent butterscotch ripple." "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." "A thing of beauty is a joy forever." All Wonka, himself quoting a number of sources (Oscar Wilde, the Bible...)

Also, supply and demand act inversely. If there is nearly zero supply, demand will drive up a price. If there is HUGE demand, but supply is even HUGER, price will drop. The seventh Harry Potter book was easy to buy at a discount- the enormous demand was exceeded by an even more enormous supply. Thus, a few DOZEN people buying books can make it look like there's a huge demand-since they exceed the miniscule supply.

"I've just decided to switch our Friday schedule to Monday, which means that the test we take each Friday, on what we learned during the week, will now take place on Monday, before we've learned it. But, since today is Tuesday, it doesn't matter in the slightest." "No, no, don't speak--for some moments in life there are no words." "We must remember there are many more important things, many more important things . . . off hand, I can't think of what they are, but I'm sure there must be something." "So shines a good deed in a weary world." "That's right, you don't know because only I know. If you knew and I didn't know then you'd be teaching me instead of me teaching you, and for a student to be teaching his teacher is presumptuous and rude. Do I make my self clear?" "Yes, sir." "Is it my soul that calls upon my name?" "Oh, you should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about." "The suspense is terrible. I hope it'll last." "Where is fancy bred? In the heart, or in the head?? "99...44...100 percent pure." "Across the desert lies the promised land." "All I ask is a tall ship and a star to sail her by." 'Round the world and home again, that's the sailor's way!" "A small step for mankind, but a giant step for us." "Invention, my dear friends, is ninety-three percent perspiration, six percent electricity, four percent evaporation, and two percent butterscotch ripple." "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." "A thing of beauty is a joy forever."

Could God make it snow for any of us? I believe all the Christians here will say "yes". (I'm supposing that you mean the "snow on the pumps". The Tulsa snow job was confirmed to be a untruth in great detail.) There's several sub-issues here. Was this supposedly REAL snow, or a VISION of snow? All indications SEEM to be that it's supposed to be REAL snow. If it WAS, then it arrived in exactly ONE spot, with some of it instantly on the ground, and some of it heavy in the air. It then VANISHED. Could God do that? Well, yes. Whether you think God would go thru all that trouble when a VISION would work as well is a matter of opinion. If it was a VISION, then this goes back to the original question- which it would anyway. The supposed snow was to confirm that God would teach vpw God's Word like it had not been known since the 1st century, if vpw would teach it to others. The teachings and practices vpw taught and instituted bear NO resemblance to the 1st century church. They decentralized authority-he concentrated it in one person-himself. They spread out the money where there was need-vpw concentrated it at hq, where it STAYED. Their leaders led austere lives, Paul working a secular job at one point. vpw piled up luxuries for himself of nearly every kind. Their emphasis was on spiritual basics. vpw emphasized intellectual study. They had signs, miracles and wonders as day-to-day events. vpw-well, I suppose he saw a FEW here and there. Furthermore, "The Word like it hadn't been known since the 1st century" is a FICTION. In the 1st century, they had the Old Testament (the Torah), and a few of the letters where they could be found. It sounds like such a neat slogan, though..... Finally, although vpw taught others, EVERYTHING he taught (95% at the bare minimum) can be traced DIRECTLY to the work of ANOTHER Christian which was ALREADY in effect at the time. pfal was an cut-and-paste of the work (primarily) BG Leonard- whose class vpw copied over word-for-word originally, and thus it was known to all students of BG Leonard before vpw came around- (secondarily) EW Bullinger-whose books had been around for perhaps half-a-century before vpw heard of him, thus it was known to all his readers- (tertially) JE Stiles-whose work and book on the holy spirit were ALSO in effect long before, and whose book "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" was copied over almost word-for-word into the 1st edition of the White Book. Thus, the only things that had not "been known" before vpw ripped off the works of others was a handful of names-"manifestation","administration"-if those weren't a direct ripoff of someone else as well. Thus, the entire 1942 promise completely failed to come to pass. vpw taught others, but at no point did he teach them "God's Word as it has not been known since the 1st century" (for all the reasons I just gave.) Since God does not fail His promises, the logical conclusion is that this was NOT a promise of God. According to Scripture, if a man claims to speak in the name of the LORD and what he says does NOT come to pass, then he is a FALSE PROPHET. The only question then remaining is: Did vpw invent this 1942 promise? or did vpw receive a vision from a source other than the True God? The possibility of him actually receiving this as revelation from God, as you see, is excluded based on its phrasing and its results. Given that BG Leonard wrote something similar, vpw read his book, and, some years later began making this promise, it is most likely that vpw intentionally made it up based on BG Leonard's writings.

Ok. Supposedly, a life-changing day, one of the 2 greatest days of vpw's life. vpw can't seem to keep some of the most basic details straight. And what he DOES say is often VERY interesting. Both accounts were from tape-one ON a tape, the other in TW:LiL and transcribed to the book. "And so, all of this stuff began to build. And so finally, as I kept praying, I just said to the Father, I said, Father, teach me the Word - Teach me the Word, And one night, something happened, which to me is the greatest thing I don't - I see only one experience that perhaps is greater than this in the Bible, and that's the Apostle Paul's experience on the road to Damascus. Outside of that, I see nothing in the Word that equals how God revealed Himself to me and talked to me and told me as plain as day that, if I would study the Word, He would teach me the Word like He had not been able to teach it to anybody since the first generation, And of course at that time I thought, now that's a dandy, boy, if I learned this Word of God, everybody'll listen to me, the whole church will be blessed, my denomination will grow by leaps and bounds because we'll have the Word of God. And I thought that was terrific - but during the process of that revelation and I can't tell it all to you because we're already closing off. But during the process of it, I said: "Father, how will I know that this is You and that You'll really teach it to me?" Because I had worked the Word in commentaries and the rest of it and I couldn't understand it, couldn't get it to fit. And it happened to be bright sunshine like today - like it's been today and yesterday what we people refer to, I guess as Indian Summer - beautiful day. And the sun was shining brightly; it was in the Fall of the year - gorgeous! And there wasn't a cloud in the sky. And just on the inside of me it seemed to say, Well, just say to the Father, Well, if - if it'll just snow - right now, you'll just know that this is God talking to you, But you see I'd never had much experience with God talking to me. And this business of He saying to me, just as audibly as I'm speaking to you, that He'd teach me the Word if I'd teach it, sort of shook me. I'd been expecting to hear from heaven for a long time, but I hadn't heard that way before, you know. Ah, my ears were perhaps clogged up, since that time I've heard a lot of things - from Him. But, then I said, "Lord, if this is really true, I'd like to see it snow." And I opened my eyes, must not have been over three seconds, and I was sitting in front of the window looking East, the sun was - ah, West. The sun was in the West and there wasn't a cloud in the sky cause I could see the whole area. I closed my eyes when God said to me that He would teach me the Word if I'd teach it. And I said, Lord, to know that this is true, I'd like to see it snow, And I opened my eyes and it was pitch - almost pitch black outside and the snow was falling so thick, I have never seen it fall that thick since that day. And I sat in that little office and I cried like a baby, because I guess it was about my time to cry, because I'd grown up but didn't know the Word." ========================= About 1970, documented in TW:LiL, vpw said the following on tape: "I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on. And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others. Well, I nearly flew off my chair. I couldn't believe that God would talk to me." "Well, on the day God spoke to me, I couldn't believe it. But then I came to the point by the next day where I said to myself-maybe it's true. So the next day I talked to God again. I said, 'Lord, if it's really true what you said to me yesterday, if that was really you talking to me, you've got to give me a sign so that I can really know, so that I can believe.' The sky was crystal blue and clear. Not a cloud in sight. It was a beautiful early autumn day. I said 'If that was really you, and you meant what you said, give me a sign. Let me see it snow.' My eyes were tightly shut as I prayed. And then I opened them. The sky was so white and thick with snow, I couldn't see the tanks at the filling station on the corner not 75 feet away." Doctor relates this phenomenon in a joyous voice. " ======================= He was addressing God one way, then another. His response was one thing, then another. His skeptical response was immediate, then it was the next day. The "snow" was a BLACK snow, then it was a white-out. I expect a man to have difficulty remembering what he ate for lunch a year ago, but if he supposedly had a life-changing experience, he should remember it in great detail. One may get a little fuzzy on details over decades. However, one will do so CONSISTENTLY, that is, the vagueness will be consistent. People don't go from "the sky at that moment was completely BLACK" to "the sky at that moment was completely WHITE" because it's impossible to confuse the two. It's beyond any REASONABLE doubt that this was a STORY that he didn't keep straight. Nor did he need to-he fooled people ALL THROUGH HIS LIFETIME with this story, even getting the details confused.

John's referring to the OTHER "snowstorm." vpw has referred to 2 days as most significant to him, and has claimed miraculous snowstorms for both of them. 1) the supposed date of the alleged 1942 promise 2) the date he met JE Stiles and spoke in tongues. THIS is the one John's talking about. Supposedly, it was a physical blizzard that halted all traffic out of the city, by bus, train and plane. On the actual date in question, there wasn't even a snowflake falling from the sky, and no significant snowfall on the ground. George, however, mentions a THIRD alleged snowstorm.

It probably didn't come up in a search because you're not using standard terms. For example, Windows is an operating system (or group of operating system.) A "window" is a panel on the screen. The web-browser used by Windows is Internet Explorer (IE), as opposed to superior products like Mozilla Firefox. In Firefox, those are "bookmarks", and in IE, IIRC, they are called "favorites." In Firefox, the "bookmarks" (like IE favorites) are in their own menu. However, you can have a "bookmarks toolbar" always onscreen when FF is open. I think the current IE, IE 7, allows the same thing- a favorites toolbar. NOW you may find what you're looking for.

Mike,Jan 9 2009, 10:03 AM That's wrong on 2 counts, either of which invalidates Mike's position. Count 1. What vpw actually said.... 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'. " Read it for yourself. Did vpw claim the Scriptures were "catastrophically lost"? Did he claim the 4th century manuscripts were "at extreme variance with each other"? Did he claim the critical texts are "at variance with each other"? Did he say "The originals are catastropically LOST"? Did he say that what's in the originals is "ANYBODY'S GUESS"? HARDLY. He said he was CONFIDENT WE (not "HE", "WE") can get back to the originals by careful study of the current translation OR VERSION. 1) Compare one word with another word 2) Compare one verse with another verse 3) Study the context of all the verses 4) The results can contain no contradictions-God cannot contradict Himself. 5) Resolve errors by finding where they originate- the translation or in the understanding of the student (or both) What happens when WE (not "HE", "WE") diligently apply these principles? "WE GET BACK TO THAT ORIGINAL, GOD-BREATHED WORD". According to vpw. According to Mike, that's a futile effort- the current English versions are useless, and getting back to that original, God-Breathed Word is "ANYBODY'S GUESS". Mike's premise runs contrary to the clear statements of vpw. ================ B) It's wrong on a SECOND count because Mike hobbles his study by limiting himself to the limitations of vpw. Where vpw was notably weak, Mike will forever be notably weak, and can never exceed vpw's skils. vpw himself claimed the oldest texts were Aramaic. This is especially peculiar, since the more evidence is uncovered, the more this is shown to contradict all the archeology, all the discovered texts, manuscripts, and so on. vpw parroted George Lamsa on the subject. Lamsa is the one who pushed the "Aramaic first" position. This was advantageous to Lamsa, as he put forth he was THE Aramaic expert, which would make himself THE Bible expert. For Lamsa, I think this was a deliberate attempt to inflate his own importance. vpw was NEVER a good researcher. His "best work" was photocopies of the work of others, and often the deeper things showed a lack of understanding of what he was copying. (That's why his definition of "word of knowledge" is INCORRECT, despite being derived from Leonard's definition, which IS correct.) So, when Lamsa made a convincing-sounding case for Aramaic, vpw lifted Lamsa's claims entirely. If vpw had done his own research, he would have seen that his own claims of the earliest texts being from the FOURTH century were off by at least 200 years, as was known at least 20 years before he put this error in writing. See, in Bullinger's time, (a century ago), such a claim would fly. The last century, however, has seen many new manuscripts come to light, and the dates of the earliest texts now can reach VERY far back, compared to what was available before then. So, I think it was LAZINESS and BAD RESEARCH. His area of study was NOT Bible languages, Koine Greek, Hebrew. His area of study was NOT Bible History-archeology, and so on. Those require a lot of study and significant amounts of memorization. He wasn't "hot" in those areas, either-as real students of them can easily point out. Even the passing mention of "earliest texts" in the Orange Book fail to mention documents found in the early 1950s-and the copyright is early 1970s. I know they didn't have the internet, but he kept getting all those magazines that kept going in the trash-and THEY would have mentioned that was NEWS. His area of study was "Homiletics", which, IMHO, is the EASIEST/ "softest" option to take in a Bible college. As it is, a diligent student AT THE TIME VPW WAS STUDYING could know better than that. Since then, the information is at the fingertips of anyone who can go to a decent library, or search the internet. I'm confident nearly any of you, with enough patience, (and many of you quickly) could find enough information just on the internet to completely discredit Mike's claims here- Mike's claims of "extreme variance" of manuscripts, texts or both, Mike's claim (vpw's claim) of only post 4th century being preserved. As to Mike's claim that what the originals said are "a sense-knowledge guess", Mike himself (as has been pointed out a number of times) rejects the word of vpw on that one. vpw said WE could do it. Did vpw really mean WE could do it, not "HE" could do it? vpw said "WE" in that passage FIVE TIMES. That's what vpw said A LOT. Is that what vpw meant? Does anyone besides Mike think vpw could keep saying "WE" all the time and mean "ME" each time?

For those who missed it, Mike did NOT spend time learning PERSONALLY from vpw, FACE TO FACE like many of the Corps did. To make his statements about vpw more authoritative than the posters who HAVE done so, who dealt with him REGULARLY on a DAY TO DAY basis, he has to pretend the Corps never really spent time studying pfal, but HE did. Part of this, now, is this fiction that twi leaders were REQUIRED to study pfal a lot. "Do you know how much a twig leader had to study the materials? It was a lot" NO IT WASN'T. There was no requirement of minimum time before someone became a twig leader- or a twig COORDINATOR, as vpw himself called them. There was no weekly requirement for one to maintain BEING one. That is an invention of Mike. And this is the first we've heard of it. But the REST of the Corps, see, the REST of the people who dealt with vpw face to face all the time, especially the ones who post here, THEIR guidance is useless..... "Impress me with their extensive and deep knowledge of the writings", from Mike, means "Say the same thing I am saying." Anything else, no matter how profound, is dismissed by Mike, and Mike does NOT welcome it. Actually, everyone else has seen Mike's attempts here at the GSC crash and burn. Each time, Mike has creatively reinterpreted them as remarkable successes. Mike applies the same diligence that completely rewrites entire discussions to the books supposedly authored by vpw. Small wonder the end results are far from what's on the page.

"I've just decided to switch our Friday schedule to Monday, which means that the test we take each Friday, on what we learned during the week, will now take place on Monday, before we've learned it. But, since today is Tuesday, it doesn't matter in the slightest." "No, no, don't speak--for some moments in life there are no words." "We must remember there are many more important things, many more important things . . . off hand, I can't think of what they are, but I'm sure there must be something." "So shines a good deed in a weary world." "That's right, you don't know because only I know. If you knew and I didn't know then you'd be teaching me instead of me teaching you, and for a student to be teaching his teacher is presumptuous and rude. Do I make my self clear?" "Yes, sir." "Is it my soul that calls upon my name?" "Oh, you should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about." "The suspense is terrible. I hope it'll last." "Where is fancy bred? In the heart, or in the head??

You may be in the right neighborhood there. Wrong neighborhood.