Goey

Sprawled, Respectfully, I would suggest that it really shouldn't matter why some folks choose to take Mike on and have dialog with him. We all have our own reasons. As for me, dialog here helps to sharpen my thinking cap among other things. If you don't see a reason - fine, don't participate. But, I certainly hope you don't think that we are so ignorant and/or foolish as to believe we are gonna change Mike's mind. So please let us play. :)

Mike: You posted. 'No, it does not ONLY go back only to that, but also to the benefits thousands of only somewhat careful and persistent students derived and still derive from it. " Fallacy: Non sequitur The fact that many folks benefited (real or perceived) from PFAL offers little support for the claim that PFAL's was god-breathed. Many books are beneficial, yet certainly not God-breathed as Wierwille defined it. So it does not logically follow that because folks benefited from PFAL that PFAL has it roots in the original texts or is anymore authoritative/special than Bullingers "How to enjoy the Bible" or any other Bible help book.

I'll add my 2 cents. I am sure that there were some "fine" reverends in TWI. I only knew a few clergy. I guess I left TWI before the mass revving up took place or before the big wave hit the field. Truth is. I avoided TWI clergy as much a possible/ Why? you ask ... Cause I found them TWI Clergy (fine or not) were generally bossy and overbearing know it all's. And quite clickish. Yeah, I said it. So shoot me. You fomer reverends may want to step back a bit and try and try to imagine yourselves in the shoes of someone who was not Corps and was never gonna be Corps. Just your garden variety grad that just wanted to learn and spread the Word. Now here comes this "reverend" to town (most under 30 years old) giving orders and taking names. rearanging Twigs. Telling folks what and how to teach. He/she ususally only hangs out with other Corps people.... Lots of private meetings with "Corps Only" which wreaked of secrecy and elitism. I don't care how nice you were. The whole thing stunk. Let me ask, did you former "nice" reverends treat these garden variery folks (like me) as equals? Did you really serve folks (Jesus style) or try to be served? --- Did you pressure folks into doing stuff they didn't want to do. Pressure for more ABS? ( just taking orders ... I know). Did you feel smarter than or more spiritual than those "under" you. That does show you know ...... From MY prospective TWI clergy, good and bad, did all of these things. My prospective come from MY experience. Now, is some former TWI reverend is gonnna tell me I got it wrong too ? Gimme a break. Look, I am not saying at all TWI clergy were bad apples. there were surely good apples, but the tree was rotten. So, what I AM saying is that the "fine" clergy were also still working for TWI and pretty much did what they were told. The crap flowed downhill. The nice clergy/ corps just made it taste better when it eventually got fed to the rest of us. It was still crap.

Mike Posted: LOL ! -- I know that was comming. Redefining the term Bible - you have done it before. Fallacious argument: You excluded evidence that weakens/destroys your argument. You also slyly used "version" in regards to "ancient scripture". "Version" does not apply to "ancient scripture" but to "Bible" as in King James. Geneva, etc. Context Mike --- Nice try - no dice. From PFAL: (with commentary) PFAL in Purple 1 . "Where it is not italicized in a King James Bible,..." (a King James Bible) 2 "The Scripture used throughout this book is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted. (Version of What Mike ? and Why did VPW call it "Scripture" (Capital S)? 3. Chapters were first put into the Bible in 1250 A.D. Verses first appeared in the Geneva Bible in -1560 and then in the 1611 translation known as the King James. ( Note the term "the Bible" ) 4: "Now your Bible fits like a hand in a glove; now we have the Word of God. " (What Bible? "Your Bible" And what Bible is that ? Mine was a King James) 5: The Bible from which I have been quoting is called the King James Version. (Note again, the term "the Bible.) 6: "Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., 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 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." ----------------------------------------------- Wierwille taught that the true Word of God could be gleaned from "the Bible" by using the keys he taught in PFAL. He clearly taught that "the Bible" was the Word of God but he qualified that statement by saying that, " no translation or version of the Bible may PROPERLY be called the Word of God." Properly, becasue it was not the original. Clear as a bell what VPW was saying. -- That the Bible ( King James, Geneva, etc) is the revealed Word and Will of God. ---when it is rightly divided. In other words the Word and Will of God is revealed by rightly dividing the Bible (King James or any other version of the Bible ( Wierwille seems that have preferred the King James Bible) There is no need to redefine the term Bible to get to what Wierwille meant. Just read what is written. Mike, PFAL is NOT the Word of God - properly or any other way. But neither can any version or translation of the Bible be PROPERLY called the Word of God. However, casually, the Bible (versions,translations) can be called the Word of God. Wierwille did exactly that. But PFAL cannot even casually be called the Word of God where the Bible can be, because the Bible was translated from texts that go back to the originals that were "God breathed" . PFAL cannot be even casually called the "Word of God" because the evidence shows that it is simply a peice-meal collection of plagairized, stolen, reworked and possibly some original material (some good and some not so good) put together by VPW. It goes back, only to an alleged promise, sealed by an unconfirmed snowstorm. Mike, It's just a book, one of many, supposedly intended to help folks understand "the Bible". No manner of logical fallacy, dodging, distraction, denial, deception, outright lies, foisting, redefining of terms, or language twisting can make PFAL become "the Word of God." reissued or otherwise.

I agree Oldies. Buts let's not confuse love and forgiveness with ignorant bliss.

I don't need to read them again. They are clearly not implying anything like you suggest. Maybe you should spend less time "pondering" and more time reading what Wierwille actually wrote. Mike: "PFAL is the word of God" Wierwille: "The Bible is revealed Word and will of God" (Not any particular translation, but as it was originally given ) Mike: The Bible is tattered remnants: Unreliable "Just like the ancient scriptures suffered from man's interference in mis-copies, forgeries, possibly even total loss, and CERTAINLY mistranslation, so did the other sources have contamination." Wierwille: "If a minister does not believe that the Bible is God's Word and if he thinks that it is full of myths and forgeries, what would be the man's actions be if he followed what he believes? He would get out of the pulpit if he were honest with himself."

I'll play ........ 1 Cor 13:1-5 (KJV) 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 13:2 And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 13:4 Charity suffereth long, [and] is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 'Charity' in these verses is translated In KJV from the Greek 'agape' and can also properly translated love as in 1 John 4:16: Same word. Look at 1 John 1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." Love is this verse is also "agape". The same as in 1 Corinthians. While TWI put much emphasis upon the "renewed mind" there is no scriptural basis or evidence to suggest that 'agape' should be translated "the love of God in the renewed mind". If so then this verse should be translated ..... "God is the love of God in the renewed mind" which certainly does not make any sense..... Likewise in Jhn 3:19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. " Love in this verse is agapao, the verb form of agape. How could someone love darkness" in the renewed mind? " It simply doesn't fit. Same for John 12:43 Jhn 12:43 "For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God". How could they love the praise of men in the renewed mind? ..... Interestingly, Strong's does not attribute godliness to agape/agapao Here is Strong's definition. Agapao: 1) of persons a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly 2) of things a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing Agape: 1) brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence 2) love feasts It seems that agape/agapao might be best understood within their immediate context and that no pat definition applies to all occurrences. Even rendering agape as the "love of God" doesn't fit in some places. Like in John 5:42: "But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you." If we translate agape as "the love of God" it woud read "... have not the love of God of God in you" .. since "of God" appears in the text. If we translate agape as "the love of god in the renewd mind ..." well ? It seems best then not to shoot for a pat definition that will be end up being erroneous (like VPW's literal according usage), but rather to translate agape/agapao as simply "love" and then consider the context where the occur for extra or specific meaning. Now to 1 Corinthians 13:5 1Cr 13:5 "Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;" For brevity's sake I am only gonna address "the thinketh no evil" part. First a definition. From Strong's: Evil: 1) of a bad nature a) not such as it ought to be 2) of a mode of thinking, feeling, acting a) base, wrong, wicked 3) troublesome, injurious, pernicious, destructive, baneful Thinketh is translated from the Greek 'logizetai' which means to impute, count or to reckon - as opposed to 'enthumeomai' which means to to bring to mind, revolve in mind or to ponder. So what then does it mean to think evil from 1 Cor 13:5 ..... Look at the other translations and we can see more. NLT: Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. NASB: does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong {suffered,} RSV: it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; Young: doth not act unseemly, doth not seek its own things, is not provoked, doth not impute evil, Darby: does not behave in an unseemly manner, does not seek what is its own, is not quickly provoked, does not impute evil, HNV: doesn't behave itself inappropriately, doesn't seek its own way, is not provoked, takes no account of evil; NIV: It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. So it would seem "that thinkeh no evil" in the K JV is more on the lines of not imputing or keeping account of wrongs. Forgiveness if you will. I doubt it has anything to do with pretending or assuming that folks did the best they could when the evidence speaks loudly otherwise. It certainly does not mean to stick your head in the sand and stop using your brain. CK, are you thinking evil when you dis the Pope. Isn't he like Wiereille doing the best he can? Did Jim Jones do the best he could? Jim Baaker? David Koresh? According to your example it is thinking evil to say they weren't. CK, I don't think your example fits the intended meaning of this verse of scripture at all. What you have done is assumed an eroneous meaning of "think no evil" and then misapplied your assumption to try and show folks where it is evil to think that VPW, LCM, et al did less than their best. All to shore up your current beliefs. IMO your research was non-existant and motive less than honorable. So rather than honestly examine VPW teachings, you choose to misapply scripture to convict folks of unlovingly thinking evil. Now, there is a scripture where folks thought evil of Jesus (in the same manner you suggest folks think evil of Wierwille) Here it is: Matthew 9:4 (King James Version) 4 "And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? " CK, I challenge you to get your interlinear and look up the words used here for "evil" and "think". Look up the definitions - compare translations. Hint: the Greek words for evil and think are different than those in 1 Cor. . Look at the context: Then compare those words with the ones in 1 Cor 13:5 . See what you come up with ... Or do you even care ? There ya go CK ... have at it .... the ball is in your court.

Mike, You were asked: "Mike... would you also be able to provide the quote where he said "PFAL is the Word of God" or "PFAL is God's Word re-issued"...? __ Could you post and reference that quote as well please?" You replied: "Yes. ...... I already posted 22 such statements of Dr's on this very thread, the exact quotes and documentation referencing their locations." No you didn't Mike. You posted no such statements. I read the links you provided. Nothing at all there that even alluded to or implied such. Not even a hint. In no place anywhere did VPW ever state: "PFAL is the Word of God" or "PFAL is God's Word re-issued" Not in PFAL, or in any other book, and not on tape. Nowhere. He flat out never said it. That Wiereille wanted folks to study PFAL and his other teachings is no secret, but that is certainly not evidence of PFAL being the Word of God. It instead suggests VPW's desire for folks get back to the Word of God by using the keys taught in PFAL. Nothing more. To conclude that PFAL is the Word of God , or God's word reissued based upon the things you have provided, one would have discard rational thought and redefine the English language, both of which you have seemed to have done quite well.

Not just Way ordinations, but ordination in general (as it commonly practiced.) I don't think the church was intended to be divided into a ruling class (clergy) and a subservient class (laity). The titles are worthless IMO. Show me the fruit.

Wrong. It is a distraction as Oak pointed out. Why? -- Because is not relevant to the topic at hand. Whether or not it even asks a question is debatable. Even it if does, the question itself is irrelevant to the debate. (Offers no evidence one way or another concering TWI/PFAL) Your "question" (as explained) is irrelevant as it concludes hypocracy of those adressing the failings of TWI/PFAL by presuming as a fact that they have" relentless finger-pointing condemnational intensity", The implication being that if they were not hypocrites they would/should be doing the same to other religions. Pure Ad hominem and distraction. No substance at all. Oldies, you have once again ignored the fact that this forum is not about pointing out the failings of other religions. Futhermore you have no knowledge whatsoever how folks here respond to other religions away fiom this site ( even if it mattered). We don't generally discuss them here. I could hardly take any attempt from you to " help cut some hypocritical thinking" very seriously.

I would highly suggest the logic sites as a a good starting point for anyoine wanting to do biblical studies. Not because logic is the end all, but to avoid the traps of logical fallacy that many fall into when doing "biblical research".

Bible Gateway Crosswalk Blue Letter Bible A Greek Grammar by H. W. Smyth A Classic Perseus Tufts (Advanced Greek stuff) Online Bible (Software) s Sword (Software) Septuigant ( Greet OT) Christian Classics Ethereal Library Excellent Site Intorduction to Logic and Logical Argument Very Good A Brief Logic Primer The Basics Logical Fallacies Excellent Hermeneutics (The Science Of Biblcal Interpretation) Philogos Online Works of Bullinger, Eldersheim, Bunyan. Lightfoot, and others Since the dirty language filter won't allow me to spell it properly ( Even in the link URL) I can't post links to the Pesh itta (Aramaic). So you will have to type in in yourself, leaving out the spaces. http:// www. pesh itta.net http:// www. pesh itta.org

Gee CK, and I thought you were taking time to look up scriptures, do some word studies, etc . in order to intelligently explain via the scriptures, why the Greek 'agape' should be translated , "the love of God in the renewed mind in manefestation". Can't ....can you?

Huh? ... When "he" was in harmony, "his life" was in harmony .. ??? So how does that work in practice? Lemme Guess .... When the pants came off - *poof* no harmony. When the pants went back on and the deed was done, bible and drambuie hand .......... poof ! ... Instant harmony again!

Back in 91 or 92 a friend invited me to an offshoot function in Austin. I am pretty sure it was associated with Geer/Gartmore. Anyway, I had been out of TWI for 10 years by then. They had set up a tent a municipal park and there was gonna be a "teaching" by the local MOG. P**e C**e( whom I had never met or even heard of). Anyway, after burgers and general chit chat with the folks it was getting to be time for the meeting. I was lurking about the perimeter of the tent, contemplating a seat, when a woman (whom I later found out to be Mrs MOG) told me I needed to take a seat. I told her that I was just fine standing up and that I preferred standing. She became kinda stern and insisted that I take a seat. Again, I refused and she left - reluctanty. The place was sort of buzzing and there were a couple of unruly kids about 4 or 5 years old running around the tent making a bunch of racket. Mrs MOG was busying about telling folks to sit down cause the meeting was about to start. By that time I had found a chair and moved it close to the perimeter (in case I felt the need for an early exit). The kids were getting more loud and unruly. I wondered why a parent hadn't settled them down. My friend came by and I asked him who whe woman was and he told me. I asked about the kids. "Oh those are her kids", he replied. It began to make sense, bringing back memories of TWI and some of the reasons why I left. The meeting was about to start. I was in my seat and Mrs Mog was standing ( not sitting like she was demanding of others) when the speaker made his entrance. The whole crowd stood up, except for me and a few others who I suspect were visitors. Mrs. Mog glared at me then came over and told me that I needed to "stand up for the Man of God". First sit, then stand ......... Well, I stood up and got eye to eye with this b**ch. Then I told her that a real man of God wouldn't demand folks to stand up like that. And futhermore, that she should be more concerned with controlling her snotty nosed kids than busying about like a little Napoleon, demanding respect for her husband by making folks to sit down and then stand up for him. You should have seen the look on this woman's face. She was speechless. Former Way Corps no doubt, branch leaders I heard, and certainly not used to anyone talking back like that or not following her her orders. Well Mrs Mog scurried off. I stayed and listened to about 5 minutes of the teaching ( rehashed TWI stuff) while the kids continued to run about unsupervised disrupting the teaching. 5 minutes was enough for me. Never went to another TWI or offshoot function again.

The deceptions and errors of some religions ( Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, etc) do not justify those of others (TWI/Offshoots). For example: The Catholic error of papal infallibility does not make the snow appear on Wierwille's gas pumps. However, it certainly is an interesting concept to be comfortable supporting lies and error because we believe others do the same. Glad you are comfortable Alan.

While I have heard that Wierwille never called himself one directly, he nevertheless set himself up as an apostle -- by his own definition of 'apostle', combined with his claim that God told him that He would teach him the word like it had not been taught since the first century - if he would teach it to others. Wierwille states: "An apostle is one who brings new light to his generation. It may be old revelation, but it is new to the generation to whom he speaks." ( PFAL, p 352) So God gives Wierwille the light and then Wierwille brings this light to his generation. It's not a huge leap from apostle to the MOG and ultimately THE MOGFOT, especially when there were hundreds of adoring followers putting VPW up on his pedestal. The FOT part, (For Our Time) fits well with with VPW's definition of apostle. Our Time = Wierwille's Generation. So, it seems to me that Wierwille himself started the MOGFOT stuff right there with the tale of the promise(sealed by a snowstorm) combined with with his own definition of apostle. While apostleship a valid biblical concept, mogfotship would seem to be a nonbiblical TWI perversion of apostleship.

Posted by Linda Z Linda, that is a gross misrepresentation of my post and I really don't appreciate that too much. Is it an intentional misrepresentation or lack of careful reading on your part.? Generally you are more honest than that. Where have I or anyone else mocked someone because they "dont agree with every criticism of PFAL" Where Linda? I instead mock those who would sit at the feet of a known liar, abuser, and pervert in order to hear "the truth". I mock argument that truth is still truth when taught by the morally corrupt as a defense for continuing in ignorant bliss. ( Kool-aid Drinkers) Where did I state or imply that it is submoronic not to see "it" my way. (Whatever you mean by "it".) The submoronic reference was in regards to the silly debates about whether 2+2 still equals 4 from a person of bad character. I generally expect better from you than a gross misrepresentation....

I don't think it is to hard to understand whether or not the moral character of someone speaking/teaching a mathematical equation changes the result of the equation. A sub-moronic idiot should be able to figure that out. I ask the question instead, could the moral character, purpose or motivation of someone interpretating and teaching the scriptures affect the way he or she interprets and teaches the scriptures? Could a person motivated by greed, power, lust, possibly misuse the scriptures for personal gain? Could scripture be selectively and intentionally "wrongly divided" in order bring about certain self-serving effects? Is the "truth" of a verse or section of scrpture still "truth" if is it presented out of context and misapplied? Now what if we know for a fact from the first hand accounts of many eye-witnesses that someone who was greedy, abusive, power hungry and so forth, wrote many books that expound the scriptures and lay out what are presented as spiritual truths and laws? Wouldn't folks be wise to critically examine those books and the proposed spiritual truths and laws taught within them? What about credibility? Would it be totally unreasonble to cast that author's works aside and use other more credible sources references. In regards to credibility, what if I want to witness Christ to folks and I keep using that author as my main source of reference. How do I answer when somone does an Internet search and sees all the things out there about the author. How does that affect my own credibility? Do I really want to keep fighting that battle? Naw, I guess we just want to argure about whether or not the Word of God is still the Word of God on the lips of Charlie Manson...... or if 1+1 is still = 2 if said by a bank robber. Why on earth would someone want to learn the word of God from Charlie Manson anyway? Or Wierwille for that matter ......... knowing what we know. Hey wanna go to a hot bible teaching tonight? Yeah the guy teaching will probably try to screw your wife or your daughter and get you to dontate your farm. But hey, that doesn't change the Word that he teaches, its still the Word no matter who teaches it. BTW, did I tell you about the snow on the gas pumps? .......... Kool- Aid, Kool-Aid ..... tastes great ! Wish I had some......Can't wait ! Here, Have a glass !

CK, if you are going to quote me then please do it properly. I do not appreciate being misquoted. I absoultely did not say, "I see no reason for this thread". What I said was " I fail to see a vaild point..." What you put between the quote marks should be exactly what someone posted, not what you by your own private interpretation think they meant. Because when you add word , omit a word, change a word or paraphrase what was said , you no longer have the word of Goey.... just your private interpretation of it. Thanks

I'm ready too ! BTW Roy, I think the earth only has 2 poles - not 4. Maybe you meant 4 corners of the earth..That at least is a biblical term even thought it is not literallly true. Since the earth was considered flat and square way back when Isaiah and Revelation were written, four corners still fits well. However since we now know that the earth is a sphere ....... I can't imagine a sphere with 4 poles. :)

An English teacher is not likely to change the rules of grammar in order to boff a student. Likewise a history teacher, or a math teacher. Changing or modifying the rules of grammar, compositional theory, or mathematical theorems would not motivate or lure the naive into back of a motorcoach. However in the case of the Bible teacher where the bible is looked too for moral standards, and taught as the WORD AND WILL WIILL OF GOD, and the teacher is looked up to by those he teaches as THE MAN OF GOD and as representing GOD'S WILL, the case is much much different. A not so honorable bible teacher by changing/perverting the truth of GOD's WORD could indeed lure the naive into the back of a motor coach. Apples and oranges.

I did the same things doojable, but wasn't this the exception more than the rule? So do I. With his enthusasim, imagine what he might could acomplish if his enthusiasm were directed more towards the things God than the things of Wierwille/PFAL. Was this an official TWI teaching, or just something that a Way minister took upon himself? I suspect the latter. Based upon my experience in TWI this was never offered to the average TWIT. I know that I never was offered anyting like that. ( 76-83) I was generalizing in a sense. However I tried to temper that with terms like "many of us" instead of "all of us" so that the exceptions like yourself would not feel boxed in. My intent was not to box anyone in but rather to try to give CK a little slack and to give him a few things to mull over.

Chomp, knaw, smack !

Trick questions. From a sola scriptura point of view there could be no exceptions to the scrpritures posted. However there could indeed be exceptions to and arguments against the presumed or assumed meanings of these scriptures as they sit outside of their context. Call me a party pooper, but I fail to see a valid point in the exercise. Is there one?