Oakspear

The first four letters of the Hebrew alphabet are not alpha, beta, gamma, delta, but aleph, beth, gimel, daleth. Despite his claims that the "original" text has "God" as the first word, all available texts in the oldest known biblical language, Hebrew, say beredangh (in the beginning) barah (created) Elohim (God) ha-shamayim wa ha-eretz (the heavens and the earth) Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

Yeah, I knew it... ...another good woman gets scooped up :(--> Oakspear :(--> disclaimer: the frowny faces above are a lame attempt at humor :D-->...congrats to the happy couple...and congrats on getting out of Trenton ;)-->

So, no further revelation is needed now that VP has "closed the book", huh? Part of the problem was that VP didn't always understand Bullinger. I could come up with a few examples if I was home with my Companion Bible, but I can recall one:Bullinger came to a different conclusion than Wierwille did regarding the two geneologies of Jesus. Wierwille wrote that Matthew contained Mary's bloodline, putting forth that "Joseph, the husband of Mary" should have been translated, "Joseph, the father of Mary". He pointed out that the list was short a generation. Bullinger concluded that Matthew had Joseph's geneology and put forth something about Joseph being considered a legal son by Mary's father Heli because he married Mary and the missing generation being accounted for by David being listed twice. (take a moment to allow your head to stop spinning) Both explanations always seemed a bit convoluted to me, but VP's seemed to make a little more sense. Based on his belief that in Matthew, which documented the royal bloodline, was Joseph's geneology, (appdx 98)Bullinger makes a statement when discussing Jesus' brethren appdx 182). He discounts the theory that James, Joses, Simon, and Judas were Joseph's sons by a previous marriage (the Catholics used this one to maintain Mary's perpetual virginity) because, if Joseph had older sons, it would have invalidated Jesus' claim to the throne of David, since he would not have been the oldest son of Joseph. VP, in his chapter in The Word's Way, "The Lord's Brethren", makes that same statement that Bullinger did about invalidating the claim to the davidic throne. But VP taught that Mary was of the royal bloodline of David through Solomon, not Joseph. What difference would it make if Joseph had previous children, as long as he was Mary's eldest? He basically quotes Bullinger with attribution, without accepting Bullinger's premise. Stuff like that, revelation or not? Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads... [This message was edited by Oakspear on January 02, 2003 at 14:20.]

Mike: Please clarify for me if you can: What are you claiming is God-breathed, or received by revelation, of VP's writings? I think we can safely say that you don't think his grocery list, or his high school literature assignments or even love poems to Mrs. Wierwille are God-breathed! I don't believe anyone suggested that. Are you saying anything that he wrote about the bible is God-breathed? Are you saying anything he wrote after he started teaching PFAL? Are you saying anything he wrote after PFAL was filmed? Some other criteria that I have missed? Whatever that criteria for "writings" turns out to be, you have claimed that VP's writings have the same authority as Paul's. Just want to make sure that I understand what you're saying. Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

No you're not alone. :D--> As I recall, the point Wierwille was trying to make in the throughly/thoroughly example was to read what was written. I'm sure countless people looked at the word throughly and read thoroughly. If he would have stuck with that instead of giving an incorrect definition of throughly, he'd have been fine. Through most of PFAL we are told that we would be taught keys to unlock the doors of the bible; that we would no longer have to depend on what man told us, we could compare what preachers and scholars said with what the bible actually said. I thought that was pretty cool, it was part of what attracted me to twi in the first place. What was practiced was in reality somewhat different: instead of working the Word on our own, Wierwille worked the Word and told us what he came up with. Any answers different than Wierwille's were considered wrong, no matter that we used the Keys" as well. So, instead of utilizing the "keys to unlock the doors", we acted pretty much like the people in the denomination did, letting our leaders tell us what the bible said. Oh sure, we were told that the denominational leaders didn't go to the Word, but I was amazed over the years at the number of ministers who "worked the Word" as thoroughly as Wiewrwille did, using some of the same verses and coming to different conclusions. And now we're participating in a conversation where one of the positions is that the "keys", and the conclusions reached by them, were given by revelation, and we know this because the guy who supposedly received the revelation told us he did. Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

It's so great that we have examples of fanatical Wierwillism being posted here. Should make anybody who has checked this site after being witnessed to think twice. Thanks for the info MJ Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

throughly is an archaic form of thoroughly - they mean the same thing Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

Once again, we have circular reasoning here, some of Wierwille's writings are God-breathed, because Wiewrwille implied as such! "So which of his teachings are God-breathed and which are not?" How about examining each one for accuracy like you would anyone else? What you have been doing, Mike, is claiming that "because VP said it, it's true", using his own words about himself and his writings as proof of authentticity of those same writings. Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

I was never in the Way Corps, but had plenty of interaction with the 10th. My WOW year coincided with your interim year, so my WOW coordinator was 10th, as well as four other WOW coordiantors in Nebraska. A 10th grad was limb coordinator when the POP was read. John Reynolds was my region coordinator for awhile, and I talked with him a few times before my exit from twi. It was also a 10th Corps grad who kicked me out over a year ago. Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

Okay, I will! PAUL wrote down words that were God-breathed. Victor Paul Wierwille wrote down words that Were "borrowed" from others Contained demonstrable errors Changed from book to book or edition to edition If you want to argue that it's not idolatry to equate man-breathed words with God-breathed words, fine, I don't have the patience to get into semantics. Somewhere on one of these "Mike Threads" is a detailed beakdown of some inconsistancies between Wierwille's writings. On many occassions VP realized that he had made an error and went back and corrected it. There's nothing wrong with that, it at least shows that he was at times willing to change when wrong. It also shows, because there were errors in what he wrote that what he wrote was not God-breathed! What often contributed to the aura of near-perfection around Wierwille was that usually the mistakes were fixed very quietly, without admitting that there was ever a different version than the current one. Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

Mike is making a point about what he thinks about VP Wierwille and his death bed advice. He is not making a comprehensive theological statement. So why should he be expected to mention how great Jesus is? It's separate from the point he is making. I mean, if the topic was about whether the original gospels were in Aramaic or Greek, would we be throwing Jesus into every paragraph? Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads... [This message was edited by Oakspear on December 30, 2002 at 21:11.]

Oakspear and Oldiesman agree on something Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

Certainly. One of the things that we were taught in PFAL was the the Word of God, as originally written, was God-breathed, and as such perfect, infallible, and every part "fit like a hand in a glove" with every other part. We were also taught that due to a variety of things: Errors in translation Errors in transcription Deliberate forgeries Gaps in our understanding of the culture and other things The versions that we had were not the original Word of God. Using "keys" taught in PFAL, we could get back to the original heart and intent of God (I don't recall if VP every claimed that we could reclaim the original 100%, or just get close - for the purpose of this discussuion, it's not important) PFAL, as well as Wierwille's other writings and teachings, were a method to find out what the Word of God actually said and meant. I don't believe he ever claimed that PFAL was infallible, or perfect. I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that PFAL was an effective way to learn God's Word and practice it. This does not make it God-breathed. No matter how well it worked, that does not make it given-by-inspiration-of-God. Are VPW's works perfect, without error? Of course not! Even without getting into doctrinal areas, is PFAL perfect? In one session he mentions Psalm 119 and tells us that it is an acrostic psalm, i.e. each verse begins with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet: the alpha, the beta, the gamma, the delta...except that the first four letters of the Hebrew alphabet are aleph, beth, gimel, daleth. Minor error, mis-speaking, not worth quibbling over? I agree. But it still is an error isn't it? Could there be errors in the original Word of God? No. If PFAL and the collaterals were perfect and God-breathed, why were corrections made in subsequent editions? So...after those brief introductory remarks... What I mean by "on par with" is that Mike is saying that VP's teachings and writings are as infallible, as perfect, as error free as the original Word of God. Could PFAL be godly, could it be "of God", could VP have received revelation at times?, for the purposes of this discussion, I will say, yes, it's possible; but alongside that is the possibility that he made errors, something which God and his Word cannot do. Oakspear In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is [This message was edited by Oakspear on December 29, 2002 at 17:39.]

One of the big things that is left out of the movie is a lot of the background info. I don't know how you could get it all in without making each movie ten hours long, but there it is. For instance, the role of Elrond is really diminished in the movies, and Rivendell is portrayed as kind of a retirement home/survivalist bunker for Elves. Hey, Elrond was around in the First Age, when Sauron's precessor Morgoth was CEO of Evil, Inc. His brother was the first King of Numenor: Aragorn's ancestor. He has slogged it out in untold battles, including the Last Alliance when Sauron lost The Ring. Maybe they'll indicate it in ROTK, but he (along with Gandalf and Galadriel) is a bearer of one of the Three Elven Rings of Power. Instead he is shown as wanting to run out on Men, and acts a bit possesive of his daughter. Oakspear In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is

Oldies, You and I have had many differences of opinion on these forums, but I've never seen you claim that PFAL was God-breathed, or superior than written versions of the bible. You have always emphasized the positive aspects of your time in TWI, which you refer to as TWI-1. Go back and read Mike's post that I quote from. He's pretty up front about stating that PFAL and VP's other work is God-breathed, not "played a role in getting us the Word when we needed it, like no other group or person was able to do", but equal to God's Word. Come on Oldies, as great as your experiences were, and as much Word of God that you learned and applied, did you ever think that VP was claiming that his work was on par with the bible? Oakspear In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is

...that VP Wierwille was receiving anything from God, other than his own word? The evidence seems to point to him not having received PFAL by revelation, but by reading the works of others. What is there in PFAL that isn't already covered by B.G. Leonard's class or Bullinger's writings, or other sources? Some of his doctrinal conclusions certainly, but it seems to me that you are saying that what was God-breathed was the keys for getting to the original "Word of God" that Wierwille taught in PFAL. So do you have any reason to believe that PFAL (and any other of Wierwille's works) is God-breathed other than Wierwille's word for it? Oakspear In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is

IDOLATRY ANYONE? bold type and italics within quotes are added by me for emphasis Alright! VP received revelation because VP said that VP received revelation! "How else are we to handle it?" How about He was wrong?! anyone with a copy of the "Green Book" want to post a the lines that Mike is referring to? Ignore them? Hardly. But VP's words must be given the scrutiny that everything else must. Some of what he taught was true, some was not. Someone can say "thus saith the Lord, if what they are saying is what the bible says, not otherwise Oh, I don't know, because he craved power? Why did he tell us in PFAL about burning all his commentaries and criticize those who didn't go back to the bible, but read around it? What? Is it no longer possible to learn anything new? "Doctor's" works are the end of knowledge? Holy idolatry Batman! If VP's "keys to understanding the bible" are "directly from God", why couldn't the translators be "tapped in" as well? Need I say more? Oakspear In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is

*italics for emphasis were added by Oakspear I was giving you the benefit of the doubt up to this point Mike, but no longer. There's no way we would have ever gotten to SIT, etc, without PFAL? Are you telling me that there is no one outside of those who learned about SIT etc from PFAL who can speak in tongues, or do it "accuractely"? What? The BIBLE isn't good enough? What about BG Leonard? What about Stiles, who taught VP!!!?, what about the first century Corinthians? Now I happen to agree with you, and by extension VP, that no translation can properly be called The Word of God. Even well meaning people will insert their own views, however inadvertantly, into their translations. Add that to the differences among the oldest texts, and you have the element of doubt in there. VP articulated something that, although well known among translaters, etc, was not considered by regular folks: that the bible as originally written is different from the translations available today. You say "there's no way we're ever going to master the other manifestations by mastering any English version...". I infer from that statement you believe that English translations are sufficiently flawed as to prevent mastering the bible, or any portion of it. You then say "...It's the PFAL books we were told to master". You've laid it out pretty clearly. Don't attempt to master the bible written in English, because it's flawed; master a class put together by VP Wierwille which is called by you "revelation". Since it is "revelation", and it exists pretty much in it's original form (the tapes and books are still available after all) it will of necessity be pure Word of God, as the bibles we have are not. Am I misunderstanding anything? Oakspear In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is

I am going to go back up and read the long post by "Mike" which I assume includes details about the "Lost Teaching". But first I want to post this observation. But... (What follows is my opinion. You don't have to agree with it) ...it sickens me when I see VP Wierwille referred to reverentiallly as "Doctor"; not just Dr. Wierwille, but just plain Doctor. (What did "Doctor" want us to do?) Some of my fellow GS Cafe-ers believe VP taught the truth, and some view him as a man of God. You're welcome to your opinion, but it's not my opinion. Not only did he (again, in my opinion) misrepresent what the bible said, what research was, and even what his credentials were, but he set the stage for the egregious errors and abuses of the Martindale era, and indeed perpetrated many of those same abuses himself. Seeing him talked about with apparent awe, and his last words given such credence (and the evidence that his last words are so important is other words by him!) makes me ill. And "Mike": you're asking Pamsandiego and Mandii to vouch for you? Vouch for you that you're not Craig? That you're an ex-Way guy? That you are sane? Vouch for what? Hey, I've known Mandii since the 70's, and like and respect her (and like her cooking too) but her "vouching" for you won't give your opinion any credibility if it doesn't make sense! I guess I've taken a lot of words to say basically what OCD said! Oakspear In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is [This message was edited by Oakspear on December 26, 2002 at 23:23.] [This message was edited by Oakspear on December 26, 2002 at 23:24.]

I had heard that more was changed in The Two Towers than had been in The Fellowship of the Ring. I just came back from seeing TT and quite a bit was changed, but I think for the most part the movie stayed true to the spirit of the book. Granted that dialog would have to be cut out, added, changed, or compressed to move things along. Some of the big changes that I noted: Aragorn falls off a cliff in a battle on the way to Helm's Deep, and shows up just ahead of the enemy Faramir is not quite so pure in the movie as he is in the book. He is in the process of delivering Frodo and The Ring to Denethor, but lets him go. Elrond is a bit of a pr*ck. He really dislikes Men. You wouldn't know from the movie that he is one of the Halfelven who were given the choice of being Elves or Men. (His brother Elros chose to be a Man and was Aragorn's ancestor)It seems like he and all the Elves are trying to head off to The Grey Havens and hop a freighter back to Valinor before Sauron attacks A company of Elves fights at Helm's Deep. - and didn't I see Arwen marching off with them? or was it off to the Grey havens? Eomer is kind of a renegade outlaw (instead of being locked up and then released after Theoden's recovery) and is not at Helm's Deep. He shows up with Gandalf to save the day. In the book Gandalf leads another warrior (I forget his name - Erkenbrand maybe) and the Huorns kill of a good many Orcs. A couple of small things that were different, but no big deal, really: In the book, Eowyn leads the people to Dunharrow in the mountains, in the movie she accompanies the warriors to Helm's Deep. In the book Elrond will allow Arwen to marry Aragorn only if he becomes King. In the movie he is against it no matter what. It is not made clear that there are Mordor Orcs, Moria Orcs, and Isengard Orcs (Uruk-Hai) all together in the group that captured Merry and Pippin. It is shown that there are two distinct breeds of Orc. Did they really have to make Gimli the comic relief? Things that I thought were portrayed well, or just pretty cool: Eowyn is a babe! She is easily the best looking of the major female characters, and we see her wielding a sword, if only in practice. Wormtongue is as unlikeable as he is portrayed in the book. 100% devious sycophant Theoden's malady is possession by Saruman! Excellent Gollum. I hated that froggy-looking cartoon in the Rankin-Bass "The Hobbitt". The split personality (Stinker and Slinker) is also done well What a great battle! In the books Elrond, Galadriel and a bunch of other elves do not leave for the Grey Havens until well after Saruman is killed in The Shire, and there is no indication that they had any intention of leaving any earlier. Arwen has mostly an off stage role in the books, so there is no mention of her intentions at all, except that Aragorn gets to marry her after he becomes King. Brad Dourif (Wormtongue) plays a great evil guy. The first time I remember seeing him was as a condemned murderer in the X-Files who was chanelling Scully's dead Dad, he also played a sociopath Maquis in Star Trek Voyager who is being trained by the Vulcan to control his emotions. Oakspear In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is [This message was edited by Oakspear on December 26, 2002 at 22:53.]

Just testing the quote and smiley thingies. Merry Christmas! Cool Smileys quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Oakspear: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Cynic: When you people quote someone, your posts are sometimes difficult to follow: It should go: "(first paragraph) "(second paragraph) "(third paragraph) "(fourth paragraph)" Or even: "(first paragraph)" "(second paragraph)" "(third paragraph)" "(fourth paragraph)" It should NOT go: "(first paragraph) (second paragraph) (third paragraph) (fourth paragraph)" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oakspear In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oakspear In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Boy, I love playing with the quotes Oakspear In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is

Why do you ask? Is there something about it that makes you wonder? Oakspear In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is

Oakspear In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is

Oakspear In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is

...since her actual birthday is only a few days away Oakspear In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is